Dream mmorpg
Submitted by Abalieno on April 6, 2007 - 01:15.
Related to the discussion about how to make hopeless PvP defenses a bit more epic and fun.
Music
- Develop a system similar to Lucasarts' iMuse (music tunes dynamically adapting to the situation in the game). The zerg approaches and you are outnumbered, and a special epic badass music starts to play.
War skills
- The Horn
Mechanic: This is a commander skill. It can only be used when the team in a zone is outnumbered. When used it works like a simple trigger, enabling the "Braveheart" skill on all the players in the same team and in the zone. The horn is also a huge physical object that cannot be transported, so a commander must reside at a castle in order to use it.
Metaphor: The horn is played and its deep sound will be heard through the valley. You hear the sound, your realm is calling you. Fight for your realm!
- Braveheart
Mechanic: after you hear "The Horn" your "Braveheart" skill lights up ready to be used. When pressed your character is locked into place, building up a morale boost that enhances your stats. If you are hit in combat you'll be interrupted. This "buff" has a cap, so once filled it won't pass that limit (you get the visual cue of a bar filling up, so you always know the status of this buff). Around five seconds to go from zero to cap. Your morale will then slowly decay over time and go down every time you deal damage, proportionally to the damage you deal.
Metaphor: You hear the calling, your realm is calling everyone to arms. Your character rises his fist into the air (animation) and SCREAMS THE HELL OUT OF HIS LUNGS (sound). You are answering the calling. In a castle "The Horn" is played and all defenders answer the call by screaming at unison.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 5, 2007 - 23:32.
Taking from a thread on F13, mine and someone else's quotes.
This addresses "the problem that isn't a problem", meaning the population unbalance in persistent PvP.
--
People fail to understand that population IS PART of this type gameplay. Those unbalances are part of the system because they ARE the system. We are simulating the "struggle of nations" and even in real history those unbalances existed. History would SUCK if every battle was fought by the exact number of people. Taking all your people into RvR to defend your realm was THE game. This social aspect was THE game. A real motivation: fight for your realm or watch it fall. The realm NEEDS YOU.
The second you have EXACT numbers on either side, this kind of real RvR is over. "Numbers" are the heart of this kind of gameplay, not something to eradicate. The second you decide to lock numbers on either side you don't have anymore real warfare, you have something else.
So look at this from the other perspective: instead of locking numbers to erase this unbalance, why instead not trying to make the game fun and exciting when you are outnumbered?
This can be done by making correspond to asymmetric numbers also asymmetric objectives. So that these objectives (and victory points you earn) are measured on your *current* condition, and not on the unfair premise that everyone has an equal chance. We *know* that it's improbable to obtain equal footing in real persistent PvP so we don't make a game assuming that, we make a game anticipating those problems and around those conditions.
Mythic's big mistake was to design RvR ideally assuming that the three realms were always symmetric. They are not. The game rules should anticipate and be based on this.
--
tazelbain: Now with Scenarios giving the most VP, teams with best PvP teams controls the zone. This is a preferable situation because individual players have a better chance of overcome a teamwork gap than the numbers gap.
Nope because this is exclusive PvP. And exclusive PvP means that it's selective. And selective means that some players get in while other players are left out.
A successful mmorpg must promote inclusion, not exclusion. Battles, the real medieval battles were about inclusion and numbers. Grab a pitchfork and join to fight. But we all also just saw "300". And we know that a good team CAN overcome numbers. Or at least that's the myth that games should make us live, because that's what makes games feel cool and involving. Giving us myths.
The problem of zerg vs zerg must be solved elsewhere. I always said that the game must provide paths (through directed/objective based PvP) so that the game is fun and exciting even and IN PARTICULAR when you are outnumbered, because there's the potential for something truly "heroic" that the players would love (see 300 again). While it's dead boring if you know you are winning and the victory doesn't require any effort.
How to achieve this? Instead of locking the number of players who participate in a defense/attack (which negates the immersion and the WHOLE POINT of the warfare), you give teams different objectives that are balanced for that specific situation.
A concrete example for a taste of what I mean: the team with the large zerg will have the objective (and related victory points) to conquer a castle. The outnumbered defenders will have the objective to defend it *as long as possible*. The more they resist, the more points they earn, and the more they are outnumbered the more the points they earn over time scale up.
Asymmetric/immersive warfare is the whole point of RvR. You just need to make it correspond adaptive/reactive objectives that are balanced to the current status of the realm.
--
And to precise better: are the game rules to lead the players around and determine what they'll do and what they'll avoid. Carrots on a stick, goals, power-ups. That's what the game is about and what the players chase. They simply go where the best points to be made are.
What's bad in PvP when you are outnumbered is that you only waste time feeding enemies points without getting anything back. So it's often better to just /quit.
If this is seen as a problem then you can use the rules to encourage and motivate players to defend. What I mean is that this is ENTIRELY a problem of game rules.
It's about time that game design starts to "legislate" on this, start working on models, interactions. Because till now RvR was just a big zone with a keep in the middle, with some bleached, gimmick features tacked on it. Not much development went into the actual RvR and warfare, and that's the main reason why all that potential is untapped.
Just think to what we could have now if RvR had received in the years the same focus and numbers of reiterations that went into PvE.
That's what I'm saying. RvR is still a closed door. The first step.
--
eldaec:
On the first question, is open RvR ever going to have mass appeal? I don't know. Indications from daoc were that it's worth a try, the casual players genuinely liked 100 v 100 face offs at keeps. The hardcore liked the open aspect of RvR much less, because it diluted their individual advantages. Certainly RvR is the only major thing that is unique to Mythic and WAR - and it's the only mechanism I've seen for having hardcore and casual players interact constructively - so it seems nuts to focus instead on something that is already the focus of games like GW. At the end of the day, what we do know is that meaningful sport pvp is an unlikely premise for a mass appeal game, while RvR is at least unknown.
First off, prep-work. The beauty of RvR prep work was that the double mega hardcore did (and enjoyed) the prep work for the casual masses. Casual players did not have to do prep work for RvR, but double mega hardcore players who wanted to get shit done in RvR had to communicate that prep work to the casuals, it wasn't perfect, but I have yet to see a better MMOG model for getting hardcores to talk to casuals. Plus prep work was only necessary at all for the very largest RvR events, on your average night of RvR you just use the realm war map to go find the action.
Open RvR remains untested in the market since daoc. And that was pretty much a stealth product by recent standards, I don't think you can automatically draw conclusions about how an RvR game would do today.
There is significant evidence that meaningful (as opposed to diversionary) sport pvp is hard to sustain in a typical mmog setting because it dramatically emphasizes differences in player skill, at the same time as limiting community size and so forcing the uber up against the noob too often.
But at the same time, the best you can say for RvR is that people who tried it usually liked it.
In daoc, assuming you survive to level 50 rr4 or so (ie. rvr viable, and yes, that needs to come sooner in WAR), your realm is, in effect, a form of guild.
But in a normal guild, the guild community can form around social links, and so it is naturally cohesive. In a realm on the other hand, the game has to build a community around the arbitary membership of the realm.
If people (scrubs included) don't care that scrub participation in sport pvp hurts the realm, that means you didn't set up an environment which builds the community right, and as such you already failed the most important precondition to make RvR work.
This is really key, if you make everyone believe they are involved in a genuinely realm versus realm competition, and believe that they can contribute, and believe that the rest of the realm is on their side; then tbh most other stuff falls into place by itself. DAOC was built entirely on that principle, in that game pve was ostensibly about building community, and open-RvR was how the community entertained itself on an open-ended basis.
Submitted by Abalieno on March 29, 2007 - 01:35.
Nostalgia (and referring to this, there's a rule: you only have nostalgia to things you lost, or traits of them that you lost, not to things that are done better). Then I'm done.
Mythic released today a patch with a few good changes (archer classes excluded) and I was writing a bit on the forums. It summarizes well my idea on the game (DAoC will remain my very own crusade and inspiration) and goes back to a lot of fundamental principles that I discussed on this site about mmorpgs in general.
--
One idea I'd propose if I was the producer (wink to Walt): plan a mini-expansion to be released this Fall.
- Price: $5.
- Purpose: completely scrap and reprogram/redraw the UI, with the goal of making it scalable so that it looks the same no matter of the resolution, which is a feature that should be STANDARD for every game. And then make it more functional, organized and responsive, with a fixed, well designed layout that leaves behind the old-style dockable windows and then buy a readable/polished/aliased font.
Giving DAoC a better "impact" while simultaneously work on the structure (meaning the PvE treadmill and a reorganization of task dungeons) would help greatly to make the game once again presentable and a first step to start drawing new customers.
--
Since they are retooling with the Frontiers. Redoing the keeps in order to fix LOS problems and make the client perform better is something I STRONGLY support, but it isn't all that the game needs.
The two most important things from my perspective are:
1- Make once again the keeps the protagonists of RvR.
2- Work to remove stalemates at those keeps so that it's fun to play there.
The bias toward 8vs8 groups made the game unplayable for me and, I'm sure, for many other players. But in particular it killed completely the accessibility for new players. When 90%+ of the RvR is accessible only in specialized groups the consequence is that a majority of players are flat out excluded.
What is left in the average experience is to sit LFG at a keep for hours. Or walk around solo just to feed points to a roaming gank group.
THAT's the FIRST problem in DAoC currently: the game needs new players, and the very few players are turned off by the UI and boring PvE first, and the complete inaccessibility of PvP next.
That kills the game. Checkmate in two.
So for me the only solution is to bring back that cooperative feeling and realm pride that we had back then. When people grouped together to fight for communal objective. And when ALL the realm joined up for some crazy battles. Everyone grouped everyone else. Everyone was doing its small part. And there were BOTH specialized groups and casual groups working together. It was fun, exciting and it built the community.
The point is to make the RvR easily accessible and fun once again for all the players, while trying to make the battles at the keeps a bit more dynamic instead of boring stalemates where you wait, wait, wait and wait.
Submitted by Abalieno on March 4, 2007 - 08:17.
This is the result of twenty minutes of "logic" brainstorming.
Logic brainstorming because I didn't start from an inspiration I got. I just started to think about the nature of the project, its restrictions and then figuring out a scheme that could fit that project well.
I'm referring to that Dave Perry's Top Secret project that I'm still skeptical about but that still keeps teasing me for obvious reasons. On F13 I posted that it could be fun to participate as a group as we are somewhat that part of the MMO world who has always had gripes and knows EXACTLY what is wrong. So it could be interesting to have that solid foundation: even if the project sucks, we aren't naive and we know the genre and the industry well enough to cut the superfluous and talk about what matters. So whatever we achieve would be still respectable.
Then I started to think on my own about the project itself and what kind of casual game could be appropriate for it. Finding a set of features that must be respected and that are common to all game concepts possible within those restrictions. From there I tried then to deduce a specific idea about a possible game.
Here the skeleton of the project:
1- This is supposed to be a smallish project as they said it must be completed in about a year and will be one of those "free" games. So nothing ambitious like a complex sandbox, a virtual living world or a massive-scale game.
2- It should work on current or easy-to-make technology. So you cannot focus on something innovative or not already proven from the technology side.
3- Low production value. You cannot expect large and immersive worlds, with impressive vistas and focus on the exploration. Nor the "epic campaign" or hundreds of hours of character development. It's a good idea to build a thing that can work with a limited group of art assets, easily expandable, and where things can be reused. Mudflation or leveled content should be banished from this project.
Considering these points I guess the best choice is for a game easily accessible, with a shallow power curve, small download, that you can get, log in and have some cheap fun within a couple of minutes. Since the "scope" cannot be the goal I guess the focus to realize a decent, interesting game should be on a core gameplay that is easy to get and fun. Nothing with multiple systems stacked on top of each other. Something simple but that can be also be mixed and freeform to hook the attention of the player in the longer term, while on the other side not losing the accessibility and fun.
One idea I had was for a Macross/Battletech/Gundam hybrid with simplistic RTS elements. Something like Planetside, but more RPG-paced. The fact that art assets should be reused makes a good idea to lean toward PvP. It could work through a short PvE introduction, with simple missions to complete, either online with mates, or offline. Completely skippable.
Then you reach the "end" game. A set of "maps" that may be linked by goals and purposes. PvP/conquest maps as well PvE cooperative mission maps. Either path (PvP or PvE) viable without forcing players one way or the other. You get points more or less like DAoC or WoW PvP. Then use these points to buy new mech parts.
The "core feature" of the game could be the freedom on how you build your mechs, so that you can put together and rig all sort of crazy, custom mechs. You build for the game a basic infrastructure, like a "grammar", then let the player recombine mech parts for a near-limitless number of combinations. Studying a system so that the final stats and capabilities of the mech fall within a directed "balance"... Maybe you can take inspiration from Magic, the card game, where each "map" has also set "requirements" (like Magic's tournaments where some cards are banished), so that the mechs must meet those requirements in order to participate. Or like in Gran Turismo (the racing game) where you have to have the right type of car to access set competitions. For example through a system where your final mech is automatically "tiered" or "ranked", defining the kinds of missions it can enter.
You can then have "practice" maps where you can go to test and fine-tune your mech, or just play for fun, on your own, without any restriction at all. Just being wild with your mech design. Think to something like X-men "Danger room".
Gameplay-wise it shouldn't be twitch (twitch games need EXCELLENT execution and it's not a luxury you can aspire to have in such a project). I would use the same system I imagined for my Fallout concept: playable with a gamepad (and ready to port on consoles if you want), using a single key to automatically target what's in front of you, or switching targets with buttons for automated weapons. Maybe different mech parts could be linked to different control methods. For example you could drive a mech with "legs" with the analog stick, while a mech on "tracks" could use acceleration and deceleration keys.
It would feel fresh enough to draw the attention of the players, while being at the same time "sticky" with the mech customization and unlocking of new parts, along with the variety of mission maps available.
Another main goal is that this game structure is also easily expandable. You can freely add new mech parts and even completely new missions and brand new gameplay. As each map has its requirements you can easily add all sort of stuff without worrying to keep everything balanced for all the rest of the game. It's so open that you could easily build whole new games within.
+ The game concept makes it also easy exportable to the large eastern market.
EDIT: I got an idea for the first "expansion": Super Robots!
I was thinking to that japanese RTS game, Super Robot Wars. Instead of toying around with anonymous mech parts, you could do what City of Heroes did to comics. Use mech parts inspired to Mazinger, Gundam, Daitarn and the like. Then have "invasion" mission types where you take your Super Robot and invade metropolis like Tokyo, Los Angeles, New York. Stomp over fleeing people, take building parts and toss them around, take down aircrafts with your lasers, blow things up, destroy everything on sight and even fight Godzilla, Gamera, King Kong -like creatures and all sort of cool, weird stuff. Like those wonderful classic Japanese movies. Okay, maybe this goes a bit beyond the reasonable scope, but it would be one hell of fun :)
EDIT2: To who thought "where is the multiplayer" about the idea above...
Super Robots Arenas! Think something inspired to WoW's arenas. 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3 or 5vs5. Ranked or unranked. The metropolises of the idea above would be the "ring". How cool it would be? And in ranked matches, as it happens in Magic, the winner loots one random mech part from the loser ;)
P.S.
Considering that this MMO won't run on a monthly subscription but will be "free", I fear that it's almost obligatory to support RMT, whether you want or not. Considering the structure of my idea (unblocking and modding mech parts) I believe it wouldn't be all that hard to put RMT on top of it. Even if I'd despise it...
You purchase new mech parts, new missions, and you may even purchase more "mech slots" to store in your "garage". So that you have more mechs ready and set up for all the different kinds of maps. Instead of having to dismantle and rebuild your current ones every time.
You can even add "durability" to the mech parts, so that you may have to repair or repurchase broken parts.
P.P.S.
This project is "gated content" certified (all content always accessible, with no "endgame" separation or drifts from solo -> groups -> raids. All modes always available right away) and "permeable barriers" certified (mechs can be dismantled and rebuilt freely, no character locked into classes or one-way choices to make). So it respects all the principles I laid down in regards of MMO game design during the latest years. And it may be the proof that they are valid :)
Submitted by Abalieno on December 28, 2006 - 20:50.
(this post may look very superficial but there's an HIGH density of pure game design)
I started to gather ideas just for fun a couple of weeks ago and it's when I decided that title you see. I did some brainstorming for a few hours but then forgot the whole thing and looked elsewhere.
Today I was thinking again about a part that I didn't completely resolved, so I decided to put together at least what I had written (and that I partially posted on Q23). I love to brainstorming, in particular in this case that it is BLATANTLY OBVIOUS that this title is pure vaporware that will never be released.
So, pick up the challenge. Put together a sketch of a design plan for a Fallout title aimed at the mass market and that can reasonably aspire to get 1M of players within the first year of release.
As I said I sort of dropped this challenge, but here it is what I got during that initial brainstorming phase.
Inspiration: Mad Max, Army of Darkness and Cowboy Bebop. What I used for inspiration is already quite weird, but I think it works to visualize the kind of world and gameplay to mimic.
Ash Williams! Chainsaws, shotguns and dynamite!
I started to find some key values that are meaningful to that setting. Things directly "fun", visceral. The cool factor. Basic expectations. The post-nuclear world.
- Ranged combat (getting ranged combat right in a RPG isn't trivial)
- The setting: I see it like a flavor of cyberpunk, just more decadent
- Tribal nature (small outposts, gangs, local mafia etc..)
- Water, food, gas and ammunitions represent the "wealth".
It's also a bit steampunk. There's technology, but a raw kind of tech. We don't have spaceships and fancy computers, we have muscle cars, dune buggies, rust, heavy metal (not the music), screws, nails. Gritty world. Dirty. Both new and old. Sixties music could fit better than modern. It's the "retro" feel. And the reason why I used Cowboy Bebop for inspiration.
The Fallout world has the essence of something strongly familiar. It's more a distorted way to see the past, than an interpretation of the future. It's actually more fantasy than sci-fi from this perspective (hence the reference to Army of Darkness).
One part I was considering is that the setting is somewhat "desolated", few people around, most are dead. You really cannot portray a noob zone with hundreds of survivors whacking droves of mutated spiders, rats and scorpions.
How to preserve the post-apocalyptic mood and give an idea of a mean world where nothing is secure and where the personal initiative makes the difference?
That's the main theme: there isn't anymore a general government, so everyone is organized in smaller tribes, ala Mad Max. Everyone is more than ready to stab the other at the right time and steal what is possible to steal. And most of the gameplay should be about the smaller, unexcused wars between the tribes while the rest of the world goes to hell.
--
Now the overall scheme is where the game can be more interesting and it's the easier part to realize as there may be so many good ideas and things to build around the concept. From this perspective the setting is ripe of good ideas and the possibility to step far away from the usual treadmills. So I don't think it's too hard to make an interesting, "fresh" game with a wide appeal.
The part that actually gave me more problem is about the combat itself. The gameplay. How do you realize this core?
Obviously you cannot go turn based. I discussed this on the forums. The premise of the challenge is to make a game that could be a huge success and a turn based game will be much harder to market. The other common mmorpgs are also turn-based, in a certain way. But instead of dividing "time" in regular segments, the division is more variable and the gameplay more fluid. I see this as a step forward, so I wouldn't go back.
The first idea I had was to use a RPG kind of (ranged) combat that could feel "right". Right meaning the opposite of SWG. SWG had ranged combat totally abstracted and weird. To explain what I meant I used the example of Company of Heroes. A kind of gameplay that feels "right" without the need of going "twitch". But people thought that a CoH from a closer perspective would be boring. It's actually hard to explain what you mean when you bring these examples.
The point is: no fancy particle effects and floating icons. Bullets, not rainbows.
It's not just CoH that got ranged combat right. Even Gears of War is a good example of combat going in the right direction with the use of the "cover". The cover is a basic element in the real ranged combat, and it's exactly what you have to reproduce if you want the combat to feel "right". The cover mechanic that is now popular in that game was something I asked *for a very long time* for SWG when I was criticizing its combat on the forums.
SWG was oblivious of those basic lesson and we got weird, fancy combat with colored bars and special attacks. THIS is what I never forgive to Raph and that I'm rather sure he still didn't understand. The "metaphor" isn't a dress. It's EVERYTHING. And if you betray it, the game will greatly suck.
The second idea I had was to use squad-based combat, like a mini-RTS where each player controls four characters with different classes. I quickly discarded this idea for a number of reason. I believe there are many good reason to keep mmorpgs the way the are. One player = one avatar. That's also a kind of visceral relationship that I don't have the courage (or real motivation) to break. It would be odd to have a player with four different names and it also depersonalizes the game. It would look also odd seeing everywhere these squads of four guys going around, especially where games have problem with lag when every players controls just one character. All these problems could be actually addressed one by one. But I don't think it's worth the work. So idea discarded.
The third was about making it a FPS. So aiming and everything. Assuming the game has a huge budget we could dare to put aside all the technical problems and try to go in this direction. But in a realistic scenario this would mean focusing the WHOLE development on trying to make a good FPS. And in the end it would mean that we have little more than a FPS. So idea discarded because I think I could use better the resources available and focus on other parts to make this game an unique experience. Not just a FPS set in the Fallout world. That's not interesting enough.
And this is the part that I didn't complete. My design here branched in multiple directions between these various modes.
When I brainstorm stuff I use to repudiate the kind of gameplay of today's mmorpgs. One good way to force things in another direction is by designing the controls on a gamepad. Not only you get rid of the typical "hotkey" kind of gameplay that BORES ME TO TEARS, but you would be also able to design a game that will be easy to port on the consoles. And if you want that million of players then every other market opening up is precious.
So. No aim-twitch because we care for the servers and cannot waste three years of development just on that. And a gamepad. Now design the combat. Ranged combat.
I usually try to portray things as a cutscene, then I try to translate that into gameplay. I was thinking of a bunch of characters with ragged clothes, all whacking mutated rats and scorpions. THAT's what you expect from a Fallout mmorpg (Fallout 2 actually started like that). Then you hear a buzzing sound that seems increasing more and more. You cannot see far away because there's a sand dune and all at the sudden you see a black shape that kind of takes off from that dune, leaving a dust cloud behind it. And it's the classic dune buggy with one driver and another on a mounted turret controlling a vulcan. This dune buggy moves incredibly fast, jumps off the dunes, nearly turns upside down after a sharp turn. The poor guys killing scorpions see this thing approaching at them at an insane speed, they try to run away and the dune buggy passes right through a bunch of giant scorpions sending pieces and green stuff in all directions. Then the buggy does a sideslip and the other guy on the vulcan turret takes care of the remaining scorpions.
That's the kind of clash I want between two kinds of gameplay. No sitting there and exchanging slaps with a poor creature. I want something fast (but not twitchy), something intuitive, immediate, with as little UI noise as possible. I want a kind of fun, arcade combat that still leaves a lot of freedom to the player. In particular I want vehicles and I want a realistic physics system. I want these vehicles to be fun to drive, even if you just do that. Driving, jumping off sand dunes, create spectacular crashes. Have you played Flatout? Company of Heroes has a very simple control of vehicles, but the physics system can do wonders to make the driving feel realistic.
I want the vehicles to have an important role in the game. We also solve the problem of travel. Today we are stuck in mmorpgs with mounts that go a bit faster than running speed. But even with a mount the travel still takes a lot of time if you have to go through a few zones. A vehicle completely reverts that perception because a car goes MUCH faster than someone walking through a desert. You can have a huge environment while making travel not a burden. And without the need of fancy teleports that aren't appropriate to the setting.
Of course vehicles need gas, and gas is precious. The inspiration is Mad Max again. You need mechanic skills to repair and mod stuff. This part about vehicles alone already provides hooks for all kinds of interesting gameplay. You can also have race circuits, destruction derbies and whatnot.
You use Fallout to ridicule Auto Assault and demonstrate them how to deliver on the theme.
So: vehicles, physics system, turrets with mounted vulcans. Lots of bullets. Lots of Mayhem.
But this doesn't complete the problem of the combat. It's just a way to explain the direction I would like it to take.
Today I was thinking about this problem and I found a better solution. We use a control system similar to other arcades. Resident Evil, Tomb Rider, Metal Gear Solid. Classic third-person, non aim-twitch. You have a key that works as the "aim". You hold the key and your character automatically targets what's in front of you. No "target lock" as it depends on the direction you are facing, the position of your body. But we can also add a lot of interesting elements. For example lowering the precision if you are moving. Or the possibility to decide how to shoot between classic two/three types (single shot, burst and things like that).
It very simple and familiar but also different enough from current mmorpgs to feel fresh. Press a button to aim and then shoot. But without needing to aim yourself. It should be quick and visceral enough to be appreciated by a large public and at the same time it won't scare away those who just cannot digest furious twitch FPS. It's something in the middle that is intuitive and that at the same time retain a RPG depth, stats, kills, detailed character sheets, perks, professions and so on. You don't have to be good at aiming to do well in the game.
Plus why not taking the best from current games. The cover mechanic of Gears of War again. You use a key that automatically makes your character take cover. You don't need a real FPS to make a good use of a good mechanic (Company of Heroes, again, also uses cover mechanics). I say Gears of War because its a recognized example but surely not the first game to do that. Metal Gear Solid had similar functions and, again, it's part of what I asked a few years ago for SWG. So aim, shoot, take cover. With simple, familiar, streamlined controls AND NO HOTBARS. No rainbows. We have already a good core. A basis of gameplay that can be used to define the rest.
No pulls also. I can integrate here all those design principles I bring with me from a long time. If I can see a bandit, then the bandit can see me and react accordingly.
In fact the success of this part of the game is all about the AI. Today the mmorpg AI just make a creature run or shoot at you. We would need instead an AI that also takes cover, uses the environment, cooperates and so on. The goal is to "simulate" a gunfight. If this part is well done then the game has already a good possibility of becoming truly successful.
--
The overall scheme
As I said, this is the part that offers more hooks for new ideas. There's a lot to play with, perfect to push the creativity.
The overall scheme: The scheme of the "onion". The more you move further away from the center, the more things go wild and only ruled by the players. "No Law" zone.
The idea matches the one of the original games. You have a central zone that is "known" and that is more secure. But the resources are scarce and you have to move out where it's risky, build factories to produce ammunitions and weapons, vehicles and all the rest. Find oasis. Smoke dope. The hippie community, with the van painted with flowers and bright colors. Till they don't find you.
It would lead to a structure similar to Shadowbane with the players-run outpost and everything, but with a predominant central hub where you can keep things under control (and directed).
You could also play with the concept of the "radiations" as a way to "shuffle" the game world and generate dynamically new things. You irradiate a zone and then the server regenerates it so that it will be ripe again for exploration. This procedure can be more or less tied with other parts, like the player's settlements, PvP and more.
--
Balancing the servers
Starting from the idea of taking the deep scheme of Eve-Online, while replacing its slow, long-range, icon & spreadsheet combat system with a simil FPS where you SEE your target. Something frantic. Something strongly visual, immersive, visceral and with as less "interface noise" as possible.
All within a SEAMLESS world. From the room inside the building (and close combat), with a player-to-NPC dialogue, till the larger desert and larger battles. No loading.
Of course this is already a huge problem. Eve-Online worked as a massive world because it's very slow and requires almost no bandwidth. So how to fit a large world, so that the players aren't lacking, with a more fast and direct combat? First answer would be: instancing. NO. NEVERMORE!
A rough idea I had was to build the world like a "grid". Now, normally you reach the limit of the grid and it would correspond with a "wall". Instead I was thinking to something that was happening to older games. Instead of hitting the zone wall, you exit from the top of the grid and reenter from the bottom.
Yeah, lame :) But wait.
With one trick. Instead of exiting and reentering the same "grid" from top to bottom, you would enter a new grid.
Every grid = one server/shard. Every grid is a nearly exact copy of a shard (with the possibility to prepare slightly variated maps as it happened with Shadowbane's shards). With its own "hub" and its own "wilderness".
This would basically allow for a "seamless" world where you can add as many new "grids" as the population of the game requires. You could add new grids on the fly without affecting the remaining ones. You can expand or shrink the world depending on your needs. Every grid would work like an independent "shard", as in current games, but with the possibility for the players to travel to the grid border and switch "server"/grid if they want. (permeable barriers)
It would work to "chunk" the players into more manageable units, while keeping the barriers between the servers permeable, so letting players meet each other in a global world.
It would also offer a perfectly scalable world that fits every need and that solves both overcrowding and desolation.
--
That's pretty much everything I thought. And I really think it can be valid enough to go as close as possible to the goal and a broad market.
Of course only as a fancy dream, because this game will never see the light of the day. Nor in my interpretation, nor in another.
Submitted by Abalieno on December 23, 2006 - 01:49.
I got an odd question in the mail that I'll back-up here:
In your "Dream MMO" how much information do you give the players? Do you give them the math behind the numbers? Do you give them all the numbers (leaving the math behind the numbers a simple exercise reverse engineering)? Can you show them NONE of the numbers? What different levels would you define to group the different styles of showing numbers? What's the benefits & drawback of these levels? Which ones are more viable?
I always intented the "ruleset" of my dream mmorpg as a pen&paper ruleset. So rules that could be managed by human player in a normal play session and simple dice rolls.
All the "logic" of the game is supposed to be "readable". So full disclosure of the mechanics, but not only. It's not just about revealing them, but also designing them so that they can be understood and used easily.
That was one of the basic goals behind the "dream mmorpg".
--
Beside many reasons (that I explained partially in a post with a similar title), there's also the fact of the "genre". RPG are fun also because rules are fun on their own. It's fun discussing them, it's fun learning them. They "belong" to a world as much as the content itself. An RPG is also the tomes you had to read. Reading the rules of a pen&paper game was an integral part of the experience that I want recuperated in a mmorpg.
As it's fun personalizing the avatar, it's also "fun" having detailed character sheets with many statistics. So, even the rules, are a part of the play. And it's a good practice to let the players in contact with them. Use them and enjoy them. While also keeping the game design and the maintenance of the code (in particular in large projects) much more viable.
"No math in games" is a general principle that I believe could do wonders. Keeping things simple and intuitive.
Submitted by Abalieno on October 30, 2006 - 13:39.
I was searching my old design notes about my "dream mmorpg" for something else but I found a part that caught my attention.
Today there are many players who complain about PvP because of bland death penalties. Because there's no permdeath, there's no full looting, no harsh exp losses, corpse camping is often considered griefing and so on. They don't want these possibilities to exist, they want them even encouraged by the rules.
Well, I've always been strongly against those positions because I always thought that PvP should be accessible and fun for everyone. Never punishing or elitist. But I found these notes where PvP is quite harsh, harsher than what you've seen till today, and yet without getting in the way of the gameplay.
It was part of a bigger scheme to make the combat more visceral and cinematic. The idea was about letting players chop off heads and limbs from corpses to create totems with which "decorate" a battleground. "Trophies". That is something with a strong effect but that doesn't remove character progress. It has a strong emotional impact that doesn't leave you indifferent, but at the same time it doesn't cripple the gameplay.
I had divided PvP vibes into two groups. The first was "personal" (corpse looting, permdeath, corpse camping all fall in this category). While the other was "communal" (conquest modes, domination and everything that is usually goal-based). And I decided that the second group was always ok, while the first should be used to "punish" the loser, but without depriving him of his progress or his possibility to play the game. So the idea to go with the emotional impact, on the "roleplay" level.
Think to the extreme scenario where you could kill a character and then rape the body. This would be *more than enough* to drive away from the game in shock and disgust half of your players and create so much noise that the "Hot Coffee" case would be nothing compared. But it is just to say that you CAN make death harsher and have more of an impact without crippling the gameplay or impairing the characters.
It's part of what you may call "taunting". It doesn't have any weight on the rules themselves, but it adds a lot of "spice" and I'm sure it offers something that even the hardcore PvPers would appreciate. Adding the personal satisfaction through totems and similar mechanics (I had planned even a hostage system), while the persistence and purpose through goal-based systems (the conquest mode, housing, city building and so on). Actually I even added notes to give these totems some effects, with enough totems in an area the other faction could suffer a "morale loss" that could work like a slight penalty while fighting in the area. Giving for example the possibility to "decorate" your city walls with these totems as a deterrent for an assault (I didn't decide if the morale penalty would apply only to NPC guards and patrols or also to the players).
In my design notes these totems were also tied to the crafting system, requiring materials to be made, with the purpose to limit their number somehow. The totems would also decay over time, becoming unrecognizable and turning into skulls.
Below these notes about totems there were other ideas for visceral combat. One in particular was about the use of "finishing moves" or "fatalities", with choreographic, dramatic animations and everything.
You could think that the implementation could be problematic because of the netcode, but the way I described them seems doable. Basically I had considered them like normal attack skills to be used only as finishing moves. They could be dodged or parried (I actually described these as the "grabs" in Tekken). The server resolves the action before the whole animation is triggered. If the attack misses, is parried or dodged, the cost of the move (like "rage" or whatever) is paid and lost. Instead if it hits and it deals enough damage to kill the enemy the finishing move animation is triggered and can run freely for a few seconds. During the finishing animation the attacker is invulnerable, so the animation can run uninterrupted without problems, in all its spectacular effect (if you think about it God of War does pretty much the same, making your character invulnerable as long the animation runs).
This gave the possibility to add spectacular, cinematic animations and special fatalities for all classes, maybe in various combinations triggered randomly. A warrior could throw his victim on the ground, block him down with a foot on his chest and then push down his sword on the body. A mage could burn to ashes his victims or freeze them with a cone of cold to send them to pieces shortly after. The more gore-ish, violent and cinematic was the animation, the better.
In particular these animations could be completely in synch, without technical problems thanks to the way they are triggered (after an enemy is "already dead"), offering a strong sense of "touch" between two fighters that is completely missing in today mmorpg's combat. And you could also have a lot of freedom, not only adding 1vs1 animations, but also 1vs many if it's the case.
Thinking about it, it isn't so unreasonable to think these special synched attacks not just as finishing moves when a fighter is already dead, but also to use them mid-combat. You may think that taking out the control from the player to play a synched animation could be frustrating and unfun as a "stun". But a stun locks one player while the other continues to hit, while a synched animation is one attack only. It would become more like a "matrix" mode, a "pause" or a "slowdown", a temporary suspension (of disbelief) in the combat that actually gives you a couple of seconds to plan your next move.
And, of course, the monsters could be enabled to have something similar and very special, cinematic attacks.
It would deserve at least some prototyping to see how far you could go (and no, your middleware won't allow you that).
Submitted by Abalieno on September 10, 2006 - 09:03.
From Psychochild's blog:
The challenge is this: Point out an advantage of either a class-based or skill-based system that hasn't been discussed to death yet. Or, if you're feeling bold, describe a system that goes beyond either of these systems.
I really wanted to contribute to that discussion with something worthwhile as I have some ideas but then I didn't find the time and only scribbled down some notes.
As I wrote in the first comment on Ubiq's blog I mostly agreed with him and for my "dream mmorpg" I was planning an hybrid with skill-based advancement but within a class system, no levels and with class adaptability.
Adaptability is particularly important. Similarly to Final Fantasy XI, you would be able to switch between "roles" to level and use separately (permeable barriers). The goal is to let the player adapt his character to a group, bypassing class requirements and "mechanics of exclusions" that often force certain classes in perma-LFG.
So your class won't preclude you to take an offensive, or defensive, or support role (see Raph's analogies). You would be able to switch between those depending on the group's needs, while also requiring them to be "leveled" separatedly (which broadens the character progression without the negative effects of the "stacking"). You could ideally switch from "battle" to "mage", but without the overpowered "battlemage" option.
(The original idea was explained better here and here.)
Another basic point is to enclose skills into "spheres" or skill groups. These would correspond to different "kinds" of gameplay you support, so that, for example, trading and crafting would go in their own sphere, with their own independent pool of points. The important part is that all player and all classes have access to all those spheres (then it's their choice to spend time into them or ignore them). This was the main critics I had about SWG. If there's crafting and combat then ALL players need to be able to craft and combat. And NOT a class for combat and one for craft. These pools will then level separatedly one from the other (or have separate caps).
This is part of the "gated content" concept, as the idea of parallel progress and content. Opposed to linear, selective or exclusive content. All kinds of different activities and playstyles should be made available as "parallel" content. Without classes that lock out of parts of the game. And without an "endgame" to reach later on that dramatically changes the way you play.
Everything the game has to offer should be available without requiring an exclusive choice from the player, and without requiring to be "reached" (the level 50 RvR in DAoC, raid content in EQ and WoW). Which also doesn't mean that all the game world is completely open without requiring any effort (see "threshold advancement" in Ubiq's speech).
Then within each sphere you would need a certain amount of "templating", so that not every player can do everything and be alike. With the possibility to gain points to lose them (?!). I mean that instead of fixed templates that you are stuck with (see what I wrote here below about "permeable barriers") the idea would be to use a system similar to Ultima Online where you can let skills decay so that you can specialize in something else if you want to experiment something different.
An hybrid system similar to what I have described would retain the advantages of classes that Raph pointed out as well (but not completely) the advantages of a skill-based system. And the concept of class adaptation and role switch would also address the other quirks about the "balance" (and "versatility", which is a great strength in the eye of the players).
But this isn't enough. The truth is that I still haven't found a solution that satisfies me. For example I like both passive and active systems. A passive system is one where you go adventuring and while you do that you see skills improving in the background (this happens even in WoW, to a limited extent). I love that kind of feeling of accomplishment, so it's something that I don't want to lose. At the same time I like an active system where it's the player to "manage" his character in detail, so with some control. This is why I'm still looking for a solution that joins those two together. Still a work in progress.
Originally the system I wanted was inspired by the pen&paper Stormbringer (which is also the inspiration for the setting). You go around adventuring but only if you achieve a particular objective you have an occasion to improve (goal-driven progress). Grinding monsters just wouldn't work if not in the case it was part of a quest. When the achievement was reached then the player had the possibility to rest. The system would flag automatically all the skills that were used along the way. The player would then choose between the skills flagged to decide which one to improve (he could have used ten skills, but he could have only a couple of attempts to "allocate"). Then, the server rolls dices for each "attempt" and tells the player if those attempts were successful or not.
I discared that system for many reasons. One was that the achievements were meant to be not repetable, but this would have turned the game in some sort of "badge collecting" that I just didn't like (from grinding mobs to grinding quests, it's better, but a dream mmorpg should aspire at more). Another was that the "server rolls" would have been random and just too frustrating to watch. And another again was that it required either too much micromanagement (in the case you had to do that frequently) or not enough (in the case you made the achievements too spaced out). It was just a system weak on "fun". It wouldn't work. I needed something else.
Again, I still haven't found a solution, but at least I know more or less where to search one. I want one that is more automated, more in the background. And, in particular, I want one where the skills improvements are gradual and better paced. It would be better also if the improvements arrive in a less predictable way. If you transform experience points in skill points (as in Warhammer), then you know exactly when you are going "ding" the next skill level. While I would like a less predictable system where the "ding" is less expected and awaited. So passive and active as two aspects that I want to join somehow.
There are basically a bunch of goals that I want to reach, but I still need to find the right combination of the puzzle so that they all match together:
- No levels, more realistic progression
- Percent skills, because they are familiar at least as much as levels (see also the principle of "transparent mechanics")
- Different skill groups so that the player doesn't gimp the charater by selecting skills that take away points from combat
- "Passive" skill-ups through server checks
- "Active" character management for the player (control, allocation)
- Customization
- Adaptability (possibility to switch classes/roles to adapt to a group, instead of being excluded or included on requirements)
One possible solution that I'm considering is this one:
- Capped spheres/skillgroups, so that the player can customize and "template" each while still having access to the different parts of the game.
- Use-based, percent skills (server checks in the background) which each its own rules
- A system with special abilities on top, to unblock/enable through questing or PvP
Rough example: your "sword" skill % will be involved in to-hit rolls. But you would need PvP achievements or questing if you want to buy special attacks. Basically each special skill would have a requirement of base skill, but the base skill would be independent from the special one. An "eviscerate" special attack could require 70% in axes, swords or whatever. The special attack would need to be unblocked through achievements, while the percent base skills through use.
That's where the "dream game" sits at the moment, even if I'm still not completely satisfied. You may even say it doesn't sound too far away from WoW if you think at the skill progression as a level progression, but there are still some core differences that I see as improvements:
- Class adaptability and balance (solo/groups)
- Narrower, more realistic power growth
- Percent-based mechanics, transparent and easy to familiarize with
- Less linear growth and progression (as you pick up the skills to use and improve)
- Different spheres/skillgroups to explore that would open the game toward aspects that aren't just focused on combat
Instead I just cannot understand this (from Raph):
(pro-skills)
And really, the fact that there can be multiple reasons to play is at the heart of it. This is why class-based systems have real trouble absorbing crafting, for example, and we often see the notion of having a separate parallel class system for crafting alongside the combat classes. It’s like asking a hockey team to also do embroidery during the match.
I have real trouble grasping that concept. I can understand having "multiple reasons to play" if I can access different parts of the game. But if those parts are accessible only through an exclusive choice (like a crafting class OR a combat class) how this brings to "multiple reasons to play"? The game forces you to select ONE, where it could have offered instead those reasons to play one by the other.
Take together "more than one thing to do" with "multiple reasons to play". How you can achieve the latter if you can only pick one between the things that the game can offer? What's the advantage of a system that precludes large amounts of content to be experienced?
I just cannot get it. Maybe he'll explain that more.
About the rest of the discussion that spawned multiple blogs, this is a note I had taken:
--
Secondly, a skill based system kills "lesser skills" and "sidetracks". You are encouraged to "maximize" what you have, so you are almost forced to leave behind some fun possibilities just because they don't fit the "template". Instead of taking advantage of the diversity of many skills and the freedom you are supposed to have, concretely only the opposite happens. You finish to be stuck in a template and locked out of activities that would be fun, but that would be detrimental for your character efficiency.
Submitted by Abalieno on August 21, 2006 - 15:50.
Originally I was planning to write in this post just about the concept of "roads" in my dream mmorpg and its design implications, then I bit onto something.
It starts again from the long debate with Raph about the role and relevance of the "mechanics" and the "metaphor" in games. Raph thinks that the only essential one is the first, without which, we have no games. My belief is instead that they are strictly connected. And more than that, that one is the evolution and continuation of the other.
The raw theory behind these thoughts is rather simple to explain. We are cultural beings and we experience the reality only through the egg-shell of the "culture", rarely in direct contact (and no, drugs are symbolic and cultural. As are games). So our perception is filtered through that shell. As Raph says, games tell us lessons about ourselves and the world. This is why the strict mechanics are much less powerful than a "metaphor", because the metaphor is what adds the cultural value to something. Life-like patterns that are easier to recognize and that communicate their messages much more efficiently. In a word: immersion.
The basic critics I was making is that when we "simulate" something in a game we surely cannot replicate every other element. But we should choose the elements and rules that we are going to use to "make sense" in the game world. So, even if choosing a few elements, they must be drawn from a reality. If there are going to be five basic mechanics, those five should be "life-like". Immersive. They should tell something concrete.
Years ago when I was working on a MUD concept there was an idea I really wanted in. NPC guards that would enforce realistic behaviours. At that time I was only playing Ultima Online and always thinking, "the guards should take all these people going around naked and throw them in jail". And there were a lot of people running around Britain in underwear when I was playing. I couldn't swallow that. As I couldn't swallow all the stupid names that people used. I just didn't like how awkward was the simulated world. For me the immersion has always been everything, the reason why I play. I imagine a game as if I'm being there, as a movie. I don't think that a movie about Ultima Online would tell 50% of the walk-ons, "go sit in the set in underwear". It just isn't realistic and I always thought that if I was going to build a "world", one day, this would be as immersive as possible, in all its smallest details.
Let's see at this from a completely different perspective. Let's take the Doom's toilet. See, this means a whole lot. It tells us the evolution of games. The mechanics of FPS haven't really evolved much. But you can see a definite, fundamental trend in the evolution of level design. In the classic Doom the environment didn't make much sense. Raph would say that their function was exclusively about the mechanics. Long, narrow corridors, bigger rooms, moving walls, raising platforms. These had a role and this role was about creating a variation in the type of challenge, with a mix of different monsters and situations. Secrets to discover, puzzles to figure out. Everything was there with a purpose and the purpose was to create fun situations. The level design had the only purpose of creating fun and varied gameplay. Mixing the right types of rooms and environments with the right monsters.
That toilet represent the seed of an evolution. That toilet was out of place in that game. An anomaly, as it didn't create any form of "gameplay" on its own. Think about it.
The evolution was about moving away from those generic rooms strictly with a functional purpose to reproduce more "life-like" environments. Think at those elements that made Duke Nukem 3D so popular. The interactivity, the voice comments, the dancers in the bars. Compare the classic Doom to the modern FEAR. The level design in itself isn't so different. We still have walls, ceilings and doors. But today the designers and artist go in great detail to model these environments to look as realistic as possible. Instead of having rooms that are just rooms without a "metaphor" or an actual context, now we have enivronments that are reproduced as photorealistic as possible. We model officies, depots, parking slots, industrial complexes, and then desks, computers, cans, cables, ducts, sidewalks, manholes, posters and so on. More and more we go into the detail. And then we add physics so that all these objects also behave more realistically.
For me those levels in Doom that somewhat replicated more realistic environments were by far the most fun and those that I replayed more. Urban-like combat was the most fun to be had. The less linear was the level the more I enjoyed it. The mechanics weren't "better" in those cases, but the "metaphor" was much more powerful. The game communicated better with me and it felt much more immersive. Running around an urban environment was for me more direct and powerful than moving around rooms connected together with little sense. I loved so much Doom 2 because it moved in that direction. I remember that when I played in multiplayer with my friends we used to give nicknames to the different zones in a level, the "house", the "bridge", the "refuge", the "jail". We were parsing those environments to make them look more familiar.
Think about it and you'll see how the evolution we had is exactly that. We moved from the generic rooms in Doom, to reproduce realistic environments in the tiniest detail. Rooms that are linked together with a sense. Not because those details really add a lot to the gameplay. But because they add so much to the immersion and the results is significantly more powerful that you can imagine. These games communicate better. They establish a better link with the players. Today people love to play stealth games, from Metal Gear Solid to Splinter Cell. The immersion is everything. The only real difference from a normal shooter and a stealth game is that the latter replicates patterns that are more immersive. Where you have to think with the mind of your opponent, study his behaviour, follow where his eyes are looking, look around the rooms to locate the spots where you can hide better. The patterns that these games replicate are just more "life-like". More complex and immersive.
Take also the AI used in FEAR. It was the must praised element of that game but I didn't find so great as I expected. Imho the game isn't all that much more challenging compared to other shooters. What I noticed is that if you move around the level trying to mimic a realistic behaviour, leaning past the corners, duck behind things, the enemy AI seems to react much more realistically. But if you take the "run & gun" classic approach the game is even easier and the bad guys look as dumb as in every other game. The thought I had is that the AI in FEAR isn't harder to defeat or more challenging. It just tends to behave and react more realistically. And people love that. They like to go in a message board and write down a play session like a story. And this story makes sense. It's not just a game. It's pure... roleplay.
People seem to love to roleplay shooters. An enemy that yawns, sneezes or starts smoking. When they play a game and there's something that behaved realistically they go "Cool!". It's the "wow factor". (and take even the example of my short report about Sin) They call their friends and say, "Look at this!"
Is this more fun? Hell yes! That kind of "sophistication" isn't anything else that the link between the bare mechanics and the "metaphor". The life-like patterns. The immersion. "Being there". Communicating in the most efficient way as possible.
Games tell us about life. Reality and the world. But filtered through the culture. The level of the metaphor is what bring that culture in a game. We like sex and blood and things that go BOOM! in games not because they are more fun (oh yes, they are) but because they are metaphors. Nothing else.
Take someone who never played a game and that thinks that games, comics and animated movies are things for children or nerds. Then show him Pac-Man, Tetris and Bubble Bobble. Then show him that fake trailer of Killzone 2. What you think will impress him more? What you think could "win" him?
And this brings me to what I really wanted to write about. The concept of "roads" in a mmorpg and a simulated word. Right now we have various levels of implementation:
1- In some games the roads are nothing more than a different texture on the terrain to give that "life-like" impression.
2- Then in other games the roads are used to lead the player. If you follow a road you'll eventually arrive somewhere.
3- In fewer cases the roads are also safe spots, where wandering mobs do not pass, so a better choice if you don't want your travel continuously interrupted. In the case of WoW there are also NPC patrols to guarantee that the monsters stay away.
One thing that I really wanted in my dream mmorpg was varying running speed and an active role of the environment in the game. So that, for example, it would be more convenient to pass over a bridge to cross a river instead of just swimming through it. For me these are fundamental issues because, again, I aim to create game worlds that can make sense. That are immersive and where the elements have a purpose.
In the recent games we always have maps but I remember that when I played DAoC I usually had to stick to the roads to not get lost. With the maps, those roads become more like superficial graphic features than something that has a "role" in the game. In these game worlds the roads don't have a similar purpose like in our real worlds, where roads are sort of indispensable.
The idea was to change all that. What's a mount in WoW? Well, a mount is just a well-animated model below your ass and a bonus to the running speed. Then, if we nitpick, a mount defines also a social status. It says that your character is at least level 40, and if it is an epic mount it says you made a trip to IGE or that you catassed or cheated enough to get one.
The idea was, again, to change all that. Everything pivots around the keyword "realistic inventory". And then "realistic loot", but this one I won't discuss here. A realistic inventory means that I want the "weight" back in the game. It also means that a bag isn't an icon on the lower right of the screen, but a physical object that you have to wear in certain locations. And in that bag you can fit only something that is at least equal or smaller than the dimension of the whole bag. The quests tells you to bring back twenty goblin skulls? Well, you'll have to find a way to carry them.
Here plugs the idea of mounts and caravans. They are used to transport stuff that you do not usually carry with you. You can buy a cart and tie it to your horse. But the horse will run slower if you do.
And the roads. The roads will have a definite role because the carts and horses move much more quickly on cobblestones than they do on raw grass. And for sure they won't go up a mountain. If you want to transport goods between a town and the other, organizing a caravan would be required. The purpose is to give the environment a role, and more, a realistic role.
In a PvP world the players could control, camp and block roads because those roads aren't there just as a different texture on the ground, but because they were built so that the carts could move without breaking up. As it happens in our real world. This brings to an immersive game, but also to a game that has a better complexity, where the players can play actively with these elements because these elements have that realistic role that then behaves in a meaningful way.
Giving a purpose to the "roads" is just the first step to bring in the game another layer of complexity that enables the players to have a control over those elements. Patrolling and controlling roads will have a definite use. The game world would start to become more "life-like". More immersive and deep.
If you think about this, it's the path that we should take toward an evolution of these games. We always moved from a superficial reproduction of elements to then progressively add more complexity, more depth, more "meaningful" interaction. So this path is already traced, I'm only better defining it with concrete ideas. I believe it would lead to better games. Immersive games that communicate more effectively. Realistic loot, realistic inventories, realistic aggro behaviours, monsters attacking in teams instead of getting "pulled" one by one. One day these things will go away because they are only "temporary sketches", temporary compromises.
It happens everywhere. It happened when for the first time we killed the dragon in D&D to find piles and piles of gold, but instead of becoming suddenly rich the master said, "how are you going to carry all that gold?". And it happened in today's comics, where Brian Michael Bendis took the Avengers and made them live stories that are truly "dramatic". We don't have anymore Capitan America fighting against 100s nazis with a smile. We don't have anymore the superficial propaganda. Instead we scratch and scratch more on the surface. Give realistic and deep relationships to the characters, give every element a "weight". Even the random combat scene isn't anymore just a generic sequence of punches. Instead the backgrounds get more detailed and the action flows much more organically and consistently, with the "actors" respecting their positions and states. It's a more detailed and careful description. More realistic, and more immersive.
"What would you do if?" The roleplay. Immersion. Being there.
Simply put: immersive games lead to stronger bonds. They communicate more efficiently.
Submitted by Abalieno on August 7, 2006 - 11:55.
I was looking at Vanguard's concept art and it made me think about other ideas in my dream mmorpg completely unrelated. The idea of the game world finally truly in the hands of the players.
What should this mean? You can follow what made me think again at that idea. You can go admire some of the concept art for Vanguard, the environments in this case.
People say it's cool, but at the end that's just a backdrop. Even WoW has some places that make you feel the sense of wonder, but it's still just a passive frame. Think about the capital cities for example. You just go there to get quests, take the gryphon, repair, buy/sell. At the end you aren't really there because that place is owned by passive NPCs.
The world, to the players
So the idea: whould you want to own one of those places? That's the point. I want to give that kind of awe inspiring, fantasy world to the players themselves. Not to passive NPCs. Those luscious palaces should be owned by the players. They should live there. Their homes.
What we have instead? Well, Ultima Online gives you bigger or smaller houses that you can completely customize, EQ2 gives you instanced room that you can fill with garbage, DAoC gives you a few house models that you can buy on a pre-defined, generic land. I mean, the players get the crumbs, the NPCs instead get gorgeous palaces, castles, temples and so on. How's this fair?
I want that kind of immersive and yet incredible world that you can see from the concept art in some games. But then I want to take those zones and tell the players: here, this is all yours. That's the idea.
What we have instead? We have instanced PvP spaces, where you can fight around an handful of same-looking keeps. Without context, without "feel". Just four walls and a flag in the middle. How's this fair?
So let's overthrow this status. Let's be subversive. We take the best artists and world builders and we make them create the most luscious, fascinating and awe inspiring world. Something that can totally make your jaw drop. But when it's time to populate it with mindless NPCs, we invert the trend and, as God with the Eden, we put there the players and say them: this is all yours.
That's the idea. The world, to the players. It's theirs. They do with it what they want.
The context: the war and full PvP
Then we need to give them something to do. It's a game, afterall. So we say: this world is PvP. Fight for your domains.
And it's here that you learn that the world is persistent. There's is no "castle in a pocket", no private rooms. You see that palace and you want it for you? Ok, go take it for yourself. Fight for it. Your house isn't a safe place because there's war in this world and nothing you have is secure here. You have to protect your domains, you have to find allies, you have to coordinate.
There are two factions at war (with a third not directly involved in the war), you pick your side, with the possibility to betray it, if that's your choice (permeable barriers). You can then switch sides or even establish your own faction, and fight your own war against everyone else.
The conquest system
The world is big. Too dispersive for PvP? No, because we take inspiration from wargames and use a simple conquest system: you can only conquer adiacent regions to your domain. You can then lay sieges and annex regions to expand your domain. The PvP should be easy to locate and reach because it should focus on a "battlefront", the border between one faction and the other. Always visible on a map.
You can then penetrate in enemy lands, if you want. But you cannot siege inner locations that way. To reach those places you'll have to escape patrolling guards and move past roadblocks. If the guards find you then everyone will know where you are. While you cannot siege and conquer regions outside the battlefront, you can "pillage". The pillage is a possibility, but it has also a purpose. During a pillage you can damage enemy structures and steal or destroy their resource.
Full loot and economic system
This world is full loot. But wait. You cannot kill other players and steal their hard earned magic weapons and armors. The idea is instead that you can loot or destroy the resources that are used at the higher level of the community. The economy of the conquest system. The game is based on a similar model of an RTS. You'll have to gather resources such as stone, wood, iron and gold. Build farms to produce food, horses and so on to include a degree of complexity and virtual world.
The RTS: NPC bots for the boring duties
But then it's not your character to have to be in charge of those boring duties, because we value "fun" in games and we don't want any downtime. So we wait a moment and think what we left out of this game. We left out the NPCs. And that's the idea. We take those NPCs and we use them to perform the boring tasks. We tell them to mine the gold, to go cut wood, to produce food. All this while you, as the player, can leave them work and go fight for your realm.
A completely BOTTED farm system. The paradise of goldsellers and farmers? We'll see (two paragraph below).
You will want to create groups of guards, patrols, spies to defend your territories while you aren't watching, or plan the best strategy for an offence. But those guards need the food, they need the weapons, they need armors, horses, carts to transport your goods and so on. That's the RTS level. You don't smelt iron to produce weapons to be used by players. Because the players have spiffy magic items bound to them and they would cry aloud if they'd lose them. Instead you smelt that iron because your guards need to be outfitted. You need to breed horses for them to patrol better your territories, you need to give them food so that they don't get ill and will fight strongly.
RMT out of the door
That's the purpose of the "pillage". To destroy those resources, damage buildings, weaken your enemy, kill or kidnap those guards to use them as slaves in your own mines. The world is full PvP, and full loot. Say hello to goldsellers and farmers, this is your game. But to be preys instead of predators. The iron you produce doesn't log out safely with you. There's no untouchable vault. Your enemies can pillage your city, set it on fire and destroy all you have produced. They can decide to break in your depots and instead of setting them on fire, take what they find for themselves. But their pockets cannot hold tons of wood, gold or iron. So they would need to bring there their caravans to take those resources and move them into their territories. But those caravans only move on roads and are slow and are easy to spot.
Those farmers who want to use the game for real money profit won't be banned. But they will have to play along the rules of the game. And they will have to protect what they gathered and they will have to take the risk of losing *everything* after a well executed pillage by the enemy. Say hello to all those lone farmers who aren't even capable of coordinating together. This is no solo game. You cannot conquer the world and manage your territories alone.
And those are some basic features of the "dream mmorpg", described exactly as they were originally thought, in that order.
--
I was also thinking about brainstorming sessions. The way game companies work on the inside is kind of inscrutable for me, so I don't know if they do already brainstorming sessions. The idea is that you gather all developers around a table. If the group is too big you can divide it into smaller groups but everyone should participate, not just designers. So maybe one day you take designers + programmers, the day after designers + artists and so on. During a brainstorming session everyone is at the same level and has the same right to speak. There's one coordinator and a blackboard. Each of these sessions shouldn't last much more than 30 minutes and the only purpose is to gather all kind of crazy ideas. You provide a theme, like "PvP and massive battles" for example, then everyone can raise his hand and start with an idea, while the coordinator lists all the ideas coming up on the blackboard.
The "rules" are quite simple, the ideas proposed shouldn't stay within limits such as time constraints, budget, technical possibilities and so on. You just say whatever passes in your mind and that you think could be cool, without analyzing at all. The purpose of a brainstorming session isn't about planning the development. Not all the ideas will be used. Their purpose is just to suggest someone else another idea, a source of inspiration. You go with the flow without stopping with your reason to analyze and judge the idea itself. Only after the brainstorming session the ideas will be pruned, analyzed and then, maybe, slowly enter the production.
Submitted by Abalieno on July 24, 2006 - 15:06.
Inspired by the Nautilus in Verne's "20000 Leagues under the Sea".
Since I'm downloading X3 I started to think about what I would really like to play in this genre (which is another I have a passion for). The result is entirely, purely single-player load of fun. As I would design it. For a change no ambitious world-like sandbox-y plans. Just frenetic shooter, focused on a few elements that I think should be at the core of this type of fun.
- "Comet Ramming" (see description below)
- Swarms of enemies
- Grab & use loot/weaponry from enemy ships you blow up
- Squad-based combat
- PC and NPC character development
- Insane flying speed
--
- "Diablo in space" means that I want to carry over the basic mechanic I described here. Instead of having prolonged 1 vs 1 dogfighting, the idea is to set the player against SWARMS of enemy ships all at once. Totally outnumbered. Then you give the player's ship much more resistence, faster speed and overall mobility. This with the goal to focus on the movement and perception and use of the space. The 3D space is your environment, total freedom, with both speed and maneuverability to make the movement the real core gameplay. Maneuvering around enemy squadrons, huge motherships or stations and so on.
- Think to a 2D sidescroller shooter. The idea is to port those crowded situations to a space sim and 3D environment. I want total chaos and superheroism.
- Think to Macross (another source of inspiration). This is again the model to aim for. Massive battles with the players against an insane number of enemies. Missions divided into different stages and objectives one after the other. In open space, around stations or against bigger motherships. Rescue missions, patrols, escort or timed attacks. All kind of possible variations, but with multiple events triggering during the course of the same mission. So with a variation of gameplay without interruptions in between.
- Story. The story is functional to the combat. The overall setting borrows one standard theme of the space opera: the exodus. The player commands a big mothership through the space, leading his people toward a possible "salvation" or tranquility, also offering a strategical side to the game. The goal is to bring the mothership and people inside till the end of the journey. Along the way the player has a degree of freedom about where to move, to get resources and develop (enable) new weapons, systems and ships. The path is still linear, though. The exodus represents the course of the game itself, so with a definite conclusion but story-wise the game will end with a sad revelation: when you'll reach what you chased along the whole game you'll discover that it's not what you hoped, so your people will have to continue the "endless journey". No "happy end", your destiny is to continue to fight and hope. The mothership represent just a context, while the whole combat action game will be about the player flying with small fighters.
- Squad based. Think to Jagged Alliance 2. On the mothership you will be able to meet a number of NPCs, with their specific story, personality, statistics and skills. 20/25 of these. Each will enable side-stories and mini-quests that you can discover through the course of the game. The objective is about creating a squad of 5 other NPCs, so you have to select between those 30. The higher number will provide the game some interesting replayability. When a NPC is hired not only it will fight along with you (squad-based combat) but you'll also have control over their "character development", select their ships and load out, improve certain skills, tactics and so on. Some traits and tendencies will be fixed to that specific character though (for differentiation and gameplay variations, like picking different NPCs in your party in Baldur's Gate).
- The player will fight in a small, insanely fast ship. There will be five classes of ships with three ship types each to open different strategic possibilities. Hitpoints, shields, types of wepons that can be used and so on (both ships and weapons need to be slowly unblocked along the course of the game). The game will have a RPG side where you have to develop certain skills (not helping you to aim, but for example affecting damage you deal, speed, shields and so on). Skills are also used so that you have access and can use new weapons. Your 5-man NPC squad also fights along with you, they have an higher number of skills to manage since they are AI-driven, so with the possibility to have skills that deal with fire precision, for example (and yes, Comet Ramming should be a skill).
- Einhander Too Cool idea to not be taken. Each ship you fly will have a turret, or better, an "arm". The mechanical arm is used to get "loot" from the enemy ships you blow up (it's Diablo-inspired after all). The arm moves by itself so you only need to just pass close to the loot you want to grab and the arm will take it for you. So instead of developing new weapons you can steal them directly from your enemies and then research on the mothership to "enhance" them. The loot is about weapons, ammo and energy "potions".
- Some of the loot you steal from enemy ships cannot be used right away, you may need to research and develop the skills for that type. Once you have met the requirements you can then steal and use the loot "on-the-fly", literally. The arm can use only one weapon at once. It can drop the current weapon to grab another, but it doesn't use an inventory where you can store and pick the weapons you want. If you need another weapon type you'll have to identify and blow up an enemy ship that carries it (realistic loot! as Titan Quest). So you'll have to make your choices.
- During combat the goal is to provide to the player an OVERFLOW of possible targets and a pure laser tempest to dodge. Impression of velocity, speed. Massive stations and motherships to be used as reference to not make feel speed relative (it happens when you don't have references in open space). The slower movement of the enemy ships will also help to "feel" that speed.
- Powerful collision system. This is a key feature of the game. Ramming should be one of the best attack patterns available. *CLANG!* Strong metallic impact sound, with different sound types for every different ship you impact with. The sound is supposed to be "visceral" and give a particularly satisfying feel to the ramming attacks. It must feel violent. After the impact with a much bigger ship your own could get slung in space, spinning like crazy, strong perception of impact, loud sound, screen shaking. With even the possibility to get stuck into the bigger ship and needing a few seconds to manage to refloat (think about aiming for a space station, going full speed against it, powering the afterburners and then impact, making a small hole into it and having to use reverse engines to get unstuck from its structure while a swarm of fighters is shooting at you).
- Afterburners. Slow recharge time (2 minutes or so, due to the already crazy default speed of the player's ship). When activated they multiply the speed to an insane level. The afterburner lasts only 3 seconds or so (or even less if the player releases the key). When activated the sound should be like an "hiss", with the ship wailing and shaking. With the afterburners active the player cannot move the ship and just fly in a straight line. Mostly used as the Ultimate Ramming Device, or to move quickly away from a too hot fight. To enhance the "feel" the afterburners should trigger a graphic effect with the ship "getting on fire" (suspension of disbelief! Now!) and leaving a glowing trail in space visible from a long distance. Comet ramming!
- "Carom" types of collision. Think about ramming an enemy fighter at full speed and send it flinging against another enemy ship to destroy it as well, or flying right through an enemy squadron to blow up an entire row and create an hole into it. Pure destructive power. The player may completely lose control of his ship after an impact with a bigger ship (see the description two points above) but the gameplay and "main feature" of the game requires that his ship is nearly immune to collision damage, while enemy ships are highly vulnerable to it.
- Complex damage models. For example smaller ships could start to become incontrollable, or shake, lose precision as they shoot, collide with other ships and so on. The motherships and stations should be covered by destructible parts (turrets, junctions, systems and so on). The fun is about blowing things up. Lots of things.
- Fast-access turret/arm fire. Mouse button 2 works like a fast switch. Keep the button pressed and you get instantly the "turret view", release it and you go back to cockpit view. Hold down and move and you have mouselook on the turret. Press mouse button 1 while 2 is pressed (so both pressed) and you fire/use the turret. The turret moves as fast as your mouse do, with just a *slight* lag (shown through the viewfinder).
- The "arm" can carry weapons but also other types of items. For example you could replace the turret with a directional shield. The mechanic is the same so you can hold down the mouse button 2 and quickly direct the shield exactly in the position you want. For example moving it to cover your back while you have enemies on your tail.
- 1st mouse button when not in "turret view" will fire the front mounted weapon (that cannot be moved).
- Alternate fire (lock-on seek missles, straight missles etc..) available through keys or 3rd, 4rth mouse buttons.
- Since the two buttons of the mouse are taken (left for front weapon, right for the turret/arm toggle) the "barrel roll" will be available through a key toggle. As you press it the ship will start to spin already at a good speed, then it will continue to progressively accelerate the spinning speed till you press the key again to deactivate it. As it is disactivated the ship will come to an abrupt stop, with a slight adjustment oscillation.
- Sounds. I don't care about realism but I want the player to feel inside a small and super fast ship. It must feel dangerous. The sounds can help a lot to give that impression. For example by making the ship *wail* when performing sharp turns, feel sounds from laser beams passing so close to the ship, explosions all around and shaking the ship, etc..
- Constant radio chatter for immersion and mood. Coming from mothership (announcing events, like the arrive of new enemy swarms or change of objectives during a mission, scan mission stages) and, mostly, from your group, with each member describing what they are doing (converting AI actions into speech) and outcomes ("enemy squadron 1 destroyed", "shield down", "need assistance" and so on).
- 3D cockpit that moves slightly on the screen with the movement of your ship, vibrates on fast speed. But with the front weapon pointer still fixed in the center for usability.
- Fancy graphic effects. If the technology is able to support it: motion blur. (again the focus of the game is the visceral perception of speed and impact through collisions).
- Title of the game: "Comet". Simple, short, appropriate (again about "comet ramming" as a the Coolest™ feature). Epic enough, "celestial". You could add an "h" at the end for "flavor", but I think keeping it plain and simple is a better idea.
The concept of "Comet" comes from the idea that accelerating and ramming things can offer spectacular gameplay and an unique type of visceral fun. Add to the mix the possibility to steal weapons from enemy ships (as a wink to Diablo), swarms of enemies to fight at once, and the squad-based combat with some interesting character development... and you can see what was my goal.
Submitted by Abalieno on June 15, 2006 - 12:10.
This is an article I wrote in italian during the December 2004 that was supposed to appear in the most popular paper magazine about games here in Italy (also the one that spolied the WoW's expansion before the official Blizzcon, if you remember).
It was a preview of "Wish", the game developed by Mutable Realms and Dave Rickey. It was supposed to appear in the issue of February but it never did. Just a few days after the New Year's Day (if I remember correctly) Dave Rickey was kicked out of the position of lead designer (to never be replaced) and the game took a really bad turn. One year later it was definitely canceled.
The article never appeared because all I wrote was wiped from the game along with Dave.
--
Another MMORPG is coming into an already overcrowded market and people wonder, as always, if it is worth it.
This time Mutable Realms, developer of the game, has a modest team and resources, but looking solid. The path they chose (the lead designer Dave Rickey in particular) is about going in a different direction from all the other consolidated patterns that every mmorpg seem to repeat, to try to bet on original, well thought ideas, instead of trying to go directly against the genre behemoths and rinse and repeat with yet another pointless, boring clone.
It's not simple to summarize in a few words the differences between this project compared to others, however two are the main points.
The first is about the character progression. The second is about the structure of the world and the dynamic relationship between its parts.
Concerning the first, the progression of the skills will be "linear". Every character, newbie or veteran, will have from the first minute in the game the possibility to group with other players and have a small, positive role. Without the need to spend hours to reach an "appropriate level" in order to be able to join his friends. Moreover, the focus of the player won't be on a infinite, obsessive level growth, but will be instead shifted directly on the game mechanics. If you are going to kill a goblin it won't be to see a skill going from 1.5 to 1.6, but because that action has a meaning within the context of the game. A context where it's the player to decide his own objectives and where the game world reacts appropriately and actively to those actions (quests in particular).
In short: an idea closer to that ideal of a "virtual world", on which the very first mmorpgs moved steps and that now seems completely forgotten.
All this leads to the second point. There's a lot of ambition behind these ideas on which the game will be developed. The final result and concrete value will depend strongly on the execution, but the premises, one year before the planned launch date, are very good. Beside the fact that these ideas will bring a "wind of change" in a genre that has so much potential but that seems now swamped on the same redundant ideas and styles of game.
To explain better concretely, Wish will be developed around a concept, a pivot, around which the whole game will revolve. This pivot is called "House vs House". To those experienced with DAoC this concept could be easier to grasp.
The idea is about creating a world with villages and outposts spread around. The players will begin the game in one of these villages and will find outside an hostile world. The travels from one village to the other won't be risk free. These players will have the possibility to form guilds, more or less big, that in this game will be called "Houses". Once this step is done, they will have the possibility to move out of the starting village and try to go clear and conquer one of those villages under the control of the monsters to claim it for themselves. When an "house" gains control of a village, the village becomes their property and they can then establish a NPC guard system and taxes (beside the usual services such as vendors, blacksmiths etc...)
Essentially both the PvE (Players vs Environment, aka players vs computer controlled monsters) and the PvP (Players vs Players), will be completely immersed in the same game world pivoting around these villages/forts.
The monsters not only will overrun the villages not controlled and defended by the players/houses, but they could move out on their own to attack one of the players' outposts, becoming an "active" element of the game and not just standing still under a tree waiting for a player to pass by to kill them.
Obviously the "rival Houses" will be able to declare a war on each other and then poke each other with sharp sticks everywhere in the game world. This will still leave the "neutral" players relatively safe, but still subject to the conquest system and the taxes, since thew world around will see a continue evolution.
The goal is to make converge all the positive and "fun" aspects of PvP coming from games like DAoC (of which Dave Rickey was an opinionated designer) to make them converge and then "signify" in a world that reacts actively to the players and just doesn't remain in a state of staticity and neutrality.
Submitted by Abalieno on June 8, 2006 - 04:39.
Again on the concepts of "gated content" and "permeable barriers".
In the second part I tried to explain that the idea of "gated content" didn't negate the possibility to have stories, but instead enhanced it. But that's just one inherited application of the model. Originally the idea wasn't about "parallel worlds", each with its own rules, progression and story, but about general patterns. Like "solo" play, PvP, groups and raids.
So not only the different parallel worlds are accessible because "contemporary" (with the player "gated" from one to the other), but the general patterns on which they are based are also "contemporary". The player has a choice about which *type* of content he wants to experience. The rule is: experience the type of content you prefer without your character being penalized.
This is why I started to describe this model by analyzing the "endgame". There's no need for an "endgame" when finally all the different gameplay patterns that the game has to offer are always open. There's no "before" and "after". There are no obligatory passages. There are no barriers between the players that prevent them to group and enjoy the game together.
This possibility not only offers an open choice to the players without penalizing the characters they play, but it also leads to a game where the players will be much more inclined to take advantage of the different types of content the game offers. When you can easily "switch" between the different gameplay models, then you are also much more inclined to experiement with all the game has to offer.
Which is the real original goal behind those ideas: start with a familiar single player style of experience that a vast public can grasp and recognize with, and then "branch up" the game, progressively, slowly opening and disclosing all the different patterns and possibilities the game has to offer. Like the PvP sandbox. One part is used to "gate" the players to another without scaring them. Without crippling these possibilities with huge accessibility barriers or high prices of admittance.
Mass market, to me, means the possibility to absorb that public by making the game as accessible as possible. Without slapping them in the face with an insane amount of "noise". The idea of "gated content" and parallel worlds is about the possibility to layer different complexity levels, one on top of the other, so that you can slowly convince the player to experiment and learn with all the various possibilities offered.
Which is why "gated content" and "permeable barriers" are strictly tied together and have similar purposes. Educate, "lead" the players through the complexity of a virtual world.
From another perspective: you cannot hope to have a commercially successful PvP game without a PvE side that slowly convinces the players to look over to the other part. The goal is to make that transition as smooth as possible, still without forcing the players, but instead *encouraging* them to switch freely between the parts. Following their own preference.
My idea is: if switching between the gameplay patterns is simple and without penalizations, then the players will be naturally inclined to "cross the lines" (the permeable barriers) and see what's on the other side. And then consider where they want to be, making their own choice.
Submitted by Abalieno on June 6, 2006 - 13:00.
I return again on the fancy term "gated content" to focus more on some concepts that were misunderstood.
It's already frustrating not being able to convince the few who care to read what I write. Even more frustrating when I discover that not only I didn't convince anyone, but that what I wrote was also completely misunderstood and that I'm being criticized for things that I didn't even thought. In particular because I put a lot of effort trying to explain what I mean in the most clear and direct way. Receiving critics is always good, it's less good when what I write is misrepresented. There's no worse failure for me than that.
In these two articles I associated the definition of "gated content" to the "endgame" and the "world traveler" concepts. To understand things better you could also use this reference (tripartite model).
1- There is no "endgame" in this model because the idea of "gated content" erases a "before" and "after" in the flow of the game. What your character does and the different gameplay patterns he can have access to are defined by a personal choice. Your own preference. Not impositions. Not obligatory passages.
One of the steps to reach that goal is about removing "level mechanics" in favor of a skill system. The purpose here, as it is widely known, is to reduce the power differential, but, in particular, to remove the bad habit of using levels to decide the content that you can access and the content that is out of reach. With a skill based system there may be still a significant power differential between a newbie and a veteran, but it is at least possible for people to group together without the game mechanics getting in the way, crippling the experience you gain, limiting the loot you can use and not allowing you to be in certain places. The gap is narrower and more natural. The game doesn't put artificial barriers between you and your friends. This is the part that should be more familiar of the idea.
The other part involves the content in the game. "Gated content" means that there are "contemporary" realities. The "world traveler", aka the player, can switch between these realities following his own preference. While in other games you move from solo to groups and to raids, in my idea I separate the direct ties and make all those "contemporary". As your character is created you can decide, for example, to solo, to group, to PvP or to raid. Do only one of them, do only those you care about or all together. It's your choice. The game doesn't force on you a pattern, nor it cripples your character because you didn't do a specific thing.
2- I've been accused of being willingly to remove the story component from mmorpgs and since this cannot be more FAR from the reality, here some precisations in that direction.
Quoting myself again:
I NEVER wrote that the stories should be removed. This cannot be more false since it's NOT what I think.
The point is that a mmorpg shouldn't be about just ONE story with a start and an end, because simply that's not what a mmorpg should do.
Story elements CAN and SHOULD be integrated in that "world traveler" model, aka the "gated content".
EACH WORLD, or sub-world can have its story. The character IS YOU. You don't need other characters to experience more stories, and those stories in those worlds CAN and SHOULD "end". But not the game and not your character.
Each "gated" world, each reality, correspond to a different story that you can live. A different character that you can become.
The "game", as the overall structure that supports and contains all these worlds/realities, never ends. The NeverEnding Story. The real ideal behind these games. It's over only when there aren't anymore ideas, when there aren't anymore players who want to hear and be part of fantastic stories.
Instead the stories you can experience within each of these worlds WILL and SHOULD end. They can be linear and represent finite story lines. Maybe where to return one day when something new happens that destabilizes the temporary calm you achieved in a previous mission. When the designers of the game decide to move that particular story onward. You step in the gate and become once again that hero in that world. Like when you went back to Britannia with each new chapter of Ultima.
In WoW you cannot go in the Deadmines or Gnomeragon with a level 10 character. When the flying isle of Naxxaraxxwhatthefuck will be released with the next patch you won't be able to see it and play there if you aren't already part of a selected group.
Imho it make sense when your devs puts months of work to release a new zone to let it being experienced by as many players as possible. Instead of cockblocking it behind severe accessibility barriers.
With the model I'm describing you can. There are no barriers separating you from your friends. Everything in the game is offered. And it's you to determine your experience by making your choice. You could just PvP, just soloing, just raid if it's what appeals you. But it's your own choice and all the other possibilities would be always open to you in the case you decide to try something else.
The "gated content" is a model used to actualize the possibility of contemporary realities.
The player "travels between worlds". A world traveler.
You can travel to a world and become a knight, travel to another and become an adventurer, and then a merchant, an hunter, a member of a revolutionary movement that is trying to overthrow a regime, a partisan, a diplomat, a crusader, a paladin, a jester, a doctor, an exiled, a "stranger in a strange land", a demon from another world, a spy, a noble, a soldier taking part on a large siege, a thief, a treasure hunter, an explorer, an archeologist, a wayfarer, a beggar, a mage in search of knowledge, a sailor, a pirate, a revered king, a fugitive, an outcast. A predator or the prey.
A level 50 character or a level 1. All these things at once.
No, you don't "shapeshifts". But the dwellers of these worlds can see and treat you in many different ways. They can have many different points of view and offer many different perspectives. In some worlds your powers don't work, and in others they are much stronger.
These realities preserve their linearity if it's needed. In the case of the world where you are part of the revolutionary movement maybe you cannot just start the revolution as you put your foot in that world. You'll have to first organize things and all the rest that the story is setting for you. They can then be independent from each other or intertwined. For example you could need a special key to reach some place that can only be obtained from another dimension.
Such is the multiverse.
But the most important element is that there are no "you need to be this tall to enter" accessibility barriers.
If you want an even simpler definition think about a game as an aggregator of multiple, possible stories. That is my sandbox ideal. The early Ultima RPGs had already a beginning and an end, but in between they aggregated many different stories, characters and situations that you could discover, learn about and interact.
Submitted by Abalieno on May 31, 2006 - 01:14.
There are a few concepts in here that I consider particularly important and that have been recurring in what I write. The beginning of the reasoning was an article about the future of the "endgame" over at Nerfbat and it became a good occasion to explain better two terms that I created and that I keep reusing. They are two general design principles that come as a result of my observations and I consider them important because they are more like philosophies that effect radically the way a game can be designed, even if on the surface they are easy to grasp.
These are the two terms and a general definiton for both, then I'll go more in detail about the second:
- "permeable barriers". While the concept is rather broad and extended to the theme of the "accessibility", my definition follows the idea of "lines drawn on the ground". These lines define and regulate a space, but at the same time the player has the possibility to cross them. So they don't transform into "cages". Concretely the idea of permeable barriers offers a single character the possibility to change class, use different skill-sets, switch faction, travel between servers, develop special affinities and proficences and so on. All these "states" define what a character is and can do (think to a class), but they are never completely permanent and definitive and they can be reverted. The "betrayal" quest in EQ2, is a concrete example of the application of the concept of "permeable barrier".
- "gated content". This is specifically about the "content" of the game. In particular it refers to the *types* of content, so, implicitly, the variety that the game offers. It's an idea particularly suitable for a sandbox game, but not only. Each "gate" corresponds to a different pattern available. It is woth noticing that a "gate" here is a conceptual idea, not an actual gate in the game that leads to different sub-games. The main idea of "gated content" here refers to the coexistence of these patterns and the possibility of the player to choose what he *prefers*. One type of content doesn't exclude or preclude another. Not only each type of content available isn't forced on the player (you are at "x" level and have to do "x"), but it also always exists and remains accessible, valid and pertinent throughout the life cycle of that character. Without getting replaced. Instead of passing from casual content to hardcore raids as two distinct and exclusive moments, all these content types coexist as parallel lines. (btw, even here there's a drift of the term, since I also use it for the accessibility when I use a type of content as a "door" on a different type. Not only to switch content types then, but also to integrate them.)
The first point is that the whole idea of "endgame" is silly. A division between two different games, the "main" one and the "endgame" has no reason to exist.
The very first question should be about which one is better and more appealing. In some cases (DAoC) the endgame is where the fun is, you have to endure the treadmill so that you can finally reach it. In other games (WoW) the "main" game is much more appealing, while the endgame is a complete change of pace that not many players enjoy (but tend to endure).
Why this division?
We basically have two ways to play the game. The only motivation to this distiction is that it adds "variety". Okay. Then, if this distinction is about adding variety, a much better design choice would be about INCORPORATING that variety in the same model. So that you aren't bound to a "before" and "after", but instead the two patterns cohexist and you can switch them based on your preference.
The original model here is the sandbox. Or the idea that says that adding variety to a virtual world is a winning choice. The one that accomplishes more the "mission" of these kind of games and enhances the fun. The variety always adds to the fun when the players are NOT ENFORCED into a one-way, obligatory path.
So the idea to have different patterns available in the same game is not a good one. It is an *essential* one. But an essential one that needs to be presented to the players on the same level. And not separated in two moment. The "before" and "after". Univocal and selective.
The "main game" in WoW, the one that is responsible to its success thanks to its access |
