F00lies
Submitted by Abalieno on May 20, 2008 - 01:42.
Discussing on the forums the Factional Warfare concept that I criticized here revealed something rather important: I'm ranting about a game that I don't play.
Moreover, I'm ranting simply because CCP design didn't follow my own expectations and desires. And obviously CCP isn't my property and what I personally think doesn't matter.
So: I'm ranting because an hardcore game is made for its audience, and not for me.
Sure. I anticipated this and explained my reasons on the first post I wrote recently. Where I wrote that my opinion is that Eve-Online has reached its critical mass and if they now want new players they need to start open up their systems. Bridging the early (and dull) game to the more deep stuff.
Factional Warfare isn't doing that, and I ranted.
This also raised again the idea of a PvP design philosophy. A concept that I would like to see in at least ONE game. But that right now is completely absent from the market.
Which would be then meaningful only if there would be a big market for it. I believe there is. And that it is commercially BIGGER than what we have currently (for PvP). So: design philosophy and personal opinions. Personal opinions that matter not because *I* write them, but because when I write them I also *motivate* them.
This PvP design philosophy is about the progression system. Every decent system needs a progression. And every decent progression needs to be accessible. So that everyone can move through. More slowly or faster, but still move through.
Translating this to PvP simply means: PvP will NEVER be accessible and widespread if it works at a loss. So this is how it should work: if you want a system where PvP is more frequent and fun, then you need a system where people can participate without losing more they can gain.
In a system where the experienced players are MUCH, MUCH powerful than new people who enter for the first time, you need some mechanic to leverage them. Especially in the longer term, when people who are already inside become more and more powerful and the wall to climb for the new players higher and higher. In Eve it doesn't matter if there's a corp who decides to take over, new players won't have a chance if they enter a system where EVERYONE is more powerful than they are.
For PvP to work and be popular and widespread entry costs need to stay low. As low as possible.
In Eve-Online and other "hardcore" PvP games the costs are instead higher to the lower end than the higher end, where you can develop a fair margin of wealth to stay safe. Noobs pay higher costs than veterans. And this creates a gap between players that is harder and harder to fill, in a similar fashion to what happens with PvE raiding endgame. The game becomes increasingly specialized and less and less appealing and accessible for new players. That for a MMO equals to a progressive, unavoidable decline.
So: a PvP system with very low entry costs and at a gain. Where you gain through participation. Progressively.
In EVERY game and PvP systems you die a lot when you enter for the first time. In Eve-Online not only you would die a lot, but you'll also PAY a lot. So a lot of players shy away because the game isn't for them, while a smaller subset cling to the mechanic and find an exponential success, because once you climb the wall you can look down at things from far above. And it is rewarding.
But it's also an overall mechanic that is divisive and that works only toward a minority. A minority that will be eroded over time.
This means it is a choice, and that there's nothing wrong to make a game that aims at a niche. But you also have to recognize and admit what you're doing.
I'm not fighting against the idea that hardcore players shouldn't have their game. But that PvP can be both deep and accessible. And I want to play that game. And I believe it would be extremely successful.
I don't like the idea that I have to grind boring PvE missions for a week so that I'm able to participate in PvP for an hour. PvE should never be a requirement so that you can enjoy some PvP. I want a PvP system where participation costs are LOWER than the rewards. So that I can stick to it and continue to play and have fun. Without punishing mechanics to push me to the lowest risks.
These are the points I've offered for Eve:
* Open/factional PvP should be limited to SPECIFIC battleground systems tagged for Factional Warfare. While secure space should stay secure even if you are signed in.
* Within these tagged systems NPC factions should provide you the "gear" to use. Gain ranks to get access to better gear/PvP sets. If you blow up, you get replacements. As long you fight for them. (free participation costs)
* Forbid players to bring NPC-rented equipment outside battleground systems. So that the gear you gain can only be used inside this system. (not disrupting the current game)
* Forbid you to swap sets. So that you are only able to fly in NPC-rent sets, and not bring a goddamned Titan to a noob battleground.
The last point would allow these battles to be accessible to everyone, both noobs and hardcore, and yet provide equal opportunities as no one gets access to more powerful stuff.
That's how you "train" people to PvP. By making it fun, accessible and frequent.
To these proposals some players replied that the PvP would lose all "meaningfulness" if you don't risk to lose anything anymore. To that I replied that for me "meaningful PvP" is about communal objectives. Conquering and holding public space, expanding the empire.
I don't intend and don't like "meaningful" as a personal cost.
With that, I hope the argument is exhausted in all its points.
- lowering entry costs
- provide plenty of targets
- create a convergence
- add a strategic communal layer (conquest mode)
Submitted by Abalieno on November 27, 2007 - 06:08.
Even in the fantasy book blogosphere there are sometimes big debates sprawling between the many blogs.
This one is about the design of the setting. An argument I obviously like and agree with the observations being made. In fact some key arguments were already in those two forum threads where I asked suggestions of fantasy books that would deliver what I was looking for.
Being tired of the Hero's Journey I was looking for a story about a world. Not about one character. A setting where the world outlives its characters. Because people make history, but they are also expendable. Things move on no matter what one does, and the true relevance of actions and choices of some is revealed by the influence they have on others. So there's a need of story changing hands to make this concept surface. A story that can be emergent from the characters, where characters are plot devices, important, but not the finality. No real story is about one or few people, things are more complex and intricate. I wanted a story with that approach, less naive, something that zoomed in to the close perspective, for the emotional impact and empathy with the characters, then zoomed back delivering the grander scheme of things. The sense of history, continuity and consistence.
I wanted a secondary-world that worked like a sandbox. That would hold many stories within. That made emerge a complexity.
From the other side instead I wanted a world made of rocks. That felt like stone. Something visceral, something where the story came from those stones. A world with a strong feel of "place". Again not characters moving on a blurred, mutable, interchangeable background, but places that told a story themselves, about those people who lived there, passed by, fought there. Places that could be traveled one day by one group of characters, and later by others. Places as witnesses. Places as the founding pillars of a world. People come and go, but those places would stay, maybe changed, but still there. Witnesses of what happened there, a demonstration of history, bearing its signs, its scars.
Both these aspects are well outlined in that article I linked:
Epic fantasy requires us to build from first principles — vision, sound, touch, taste, scent — and make a physical place in which the action plays out that’s compelling and immersive.
Tolkien also wasn’t making his living writing fiction, and so could afford to take a very long time (commercially speaking) to refine his visions of the Mines of Moria and Rivendell and Mordor. You can find the proof of that in the reimaginings of his settings by visual artists since The Lord of the Rings first came out. Even more than the characters or the plot, the places in Tolkien are memorable.
Those of us who toil in Tolkien’s shadow have that to match, and it’s not a bad measure to judge second-world fantasy by whether you remember the places. I would go so far as to suggest that George’s success with A Song of Ice and Fire maps to the number of memorable places in the world. The Wall, Winterfell, the Aerie. When I think back to other fantasy series, I can remember characters and events, dramatic moments in the plot, and sometimes the general feel of the story even without specifics. I don’t think anyone has drawn as many powerful places as Tolkien and George, at least for me. Back when “novel” was closer to its original meaning, this was what it was all about — being someplace new and amazing through the collaboration of the author’s language and reader’s imagination.
The other concept he describes, aside the idea of memorable places, is "Setting as Milieu". That also connects to my ideas.
Often in fantasy a setting lives by its characters. You follow the story of someone, in a secondary-world, as "fantasy" can't preclude from it. But when the character is done, the setting also disappears with him. The setting lives as long the character. As if it was theater, after the piece is over the scenography is disassembled, taken away. The writer has a story to tell, and created a setting to contain that one story.
But if that's the goal then the fantasy setting is superfluous. Because a story can be adapted to every setting with very minimal effort. Being "fantasy" is entirely a quality of creation and consistence of a secondary-world. So you look at fantasy when you are looking exactly for that device.
The article says that once you made an effort to create a setting as milieu, then the setting can outlive the single story. You created something emergent with its own life. And it doesn't matter if the main characters die or disappear, because the story can move on, to completely different people, but still in the same world. This gives continuity and consistence. And this is something unique that fantasy, as a genre, offers to writers.
This is the quality of fantasy.
Setting is also milieu. Stories set in the same fictional universe support one another, and generate a sense of the familiar in the readers — a sense of returning.
|
Filed in:
F00lies | Books
|
|
Submitted by Abalieno on February 9, 2007 - 06:27.
Let's be honest. The ultimate goal has always been about making players pay MORE. Not less.
SOE has always pioneered on this field. They were the firsts to rise the monthly fee, to try to push up the standard monthly fee with SWG, to offer pay services as the ones for EQ2, to push out expansion packs every six months regularly, and then mini packs in the case of EQ2 again. Then RMT and even the Station Pass. Yes, cumulatively you pay "less", but they probably noticed that the majority of the players didn't keep subscriptions active for more than one game. So it's always the same, trying to make the customer cumulatively pay more than the 15 dollars every month.
I'm pretty sure that if Blizzard and other prominent MMO companies went to propose SOE to make a cartel and all agree to rise the monthly fees, SOE would gladly accept.
So it all comes to "make you pay MORE". Find ways to persuade you to pay more. And this is even legitimate for a commercial company (even if upside down).
If you are aware of this, then you also know exactly where it is going this myth of the "free game". To be commercially viable, they would need to make a game where if one player plays for free, there's another who not only pays for himself, but also for the player who didn't spend any $. So, if someone can pay "less", then someone else HAS TO pay "more". You cannot escape this situation.
Whenever someone is trying to offer you something for "free", he is trying to fuck you. With no exceptions.
So if you make a game with no monthly fee you have to COMPENSATE it through other means. And this compensation must equal or exceed the standard monthly fee, or this business model would be a fiasco. The only good part of all of it, being solely about the "accessibility": if the game has zero costs upfront, then more likely players will approach it and decide to stay.
That's one aspect. The other is about game design.
The problem of "alts". It's true (as Darniaq repeated on a thread on F13) that the most desirable aspect of RMT in "our" kind of games is buying leveled characters. It's boring for EVERYONE going through the game after the third, fourth time and more. It is perfectly understandable if some players look for "shortcuts". And if they accept RMT to be a good one.
This also doesn't take anything off the quality of the game. It would happen even in WoW, where the treadmill is still an excellent experience. But it's an experience that gets redundant.
Now the point is: you can decide to SPECULATE on this aspect and use the demand of the players as a perfect occasion to put your hands in the players' wallet. Or you can observe this aspect and offer GAMEPLAY alternatives that can lead to better games.
I did already these kinds of homework. The main reasons why people feel the necessity of creating more alts are to (1) switch servers, often to go play with someone else, (2) try out different combinations/classes. I completely solved BOTH of these with my own design ideas that I repeated recently and that always been the basis of all I wrote since when I started writing.
Server travel goes to solve the first problem, and the "permeable" class system goes to solve the second. If I can start a new character with a different class, why it would be negative to let players develop different careers/classes on the SAME character? Why imposing the players to build brand new identities when what they want is MAINLY just a gameplay variation? Why we cannot offer this variation they ask without taking away forcefully also their identities?
All these questions are THE BASE OF GAME DESIGN. If you don't consider these, then you have NO RIGHT to be in the game industry. These goals coincide with making good games, that are seen as good. They provide answers to needs and wishes of the players.
The contradiction with the wicked model of RMT is that it's not convenient to think and provide those solutions. They are asking game designers to go against their job. Design trappings at the EXPENSE of players. Make worse games in order to profit. Create flaws in order to speculate on them.
Medics who don't completely heal in order to continue to milk money off you. Medics who deliberately HURT in order to speculate.
And this is utterly disgusting. Not only it is wicked, but it will also BACKFIRE SPECTACULARLY, as it is completely foolish and contradictory.
And that's the second aspect. The third aspect is that Smed's laudable purpose of making a free game, based on RMT, but where the RMT only affects "non-game impacting items", is just impracticable. And I'm don't say this because I don't like it. I'm saying this because it's not commercially sustainable. It goes nowhere. It's a soap bubble.
The basic problem is: how can you fund a whole game where the small minority who practices RMT is supposed to cover the costs for every other player?
It's not going to happen. Second Life is a soap bubble itself. People forget that it isn't commercially profitable. So or you do these kinds of stuff for researching purposes, or you HAVE TO put there a "trap" so that some players spend enough to cover the costs for players who are spending less. A game with "non-game impacting items" is a game completely playable without paying one dollar, and without a substitute source of income it is a game that is supposed to run without any money. Are now game developers benefactors?
Take another, but related form of RMT, already active in WoW. Why if I want to join my friends on another server with my current character I have to pay for the transfer?
Let's assume Blizzard sold leveled 60 or 70 characters. I'm sure players would buy them so that they could play with their guilds.
Now the problem is that you can be an idiot and see these as perfect occasions to make money, or you can see these examples as GLARING examples of games' flaws. I defined them "emergencies", and emergencies they are. In the first case you are SPECULATING on players' needs. Deliberately avoiding to fix these problems and make better game in order to speculate on these flaws. In order to perpetuate them.
They keyworld is: speculation. Those who support and promote RMT are speculators in this industry and you should know that speculators are by definition parasites that don't help at all the cause. Because the interests conflict.
Speculating on the same barriers between players that it's years I'm fighting against. I asked people in this industry to react and do something about those emergencies, but the current discussion about RMT is already an answer. These people have NO INTEREST of doing something, because their goal is just about PERPETUATING THE STATUS QUO AND SPECULATE ON IT.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 4, 2007 - 02:05.
I was writing on F13 that the natural growth over time of Vanguard's subscriptions will fall sooner compared to similar titles:
A side effect of an "hardcore" game is that it will age worse. The subscribers growth will fall sooner.
In WoW the solo friendly design helped the longevity a lot because the game is built so that you can have a good experience even if you aren't part of the initial "rush" on the server. The fun experience is well preserved.
Vanguard will probably have a much harder time to grow subscribers in the mid/long term as the grind when there aren't players around will feel much harsher. Being more "group friendly" makes the game vulnerable to lack of players, off-peaks and so on. The longer leveling curve will also build much bigger gaps and it will take ages for a new player to join his friends and play together.
These kinds of barriers are overlooked RIGHT NOW. But I'm sure they'll become a major factor later on.
This is part of a bigger picture. The majority of the games out there and in development are showing obvious needs, the players are exposing them. These are cues that must be understood now. There must be answers at least to those problem that the majority of these games are showing.
So this is a design discussion common to ALL these games, not about a specific one. Game designers are LATE on providing valid alternatives and answers. I don't consider "being innovative" giving a strong, valid answer to these main problems, but if this industry must proceed through incremental improvements then at least let's DO SOMETHING. Narrow down some very simple and essential problems and tackle at least those. Define some strict goals that are *proven* as valid.
From my perspective these three are the priorities. The design principles to work toward even before the preliminary work on game design started:
1- Server structure. Brandon Reinhart recently wrote how "the fundamental server architecture has an impact on the game in a very real, money-in-the-pocket, subscribers-on-the-line kind of way", as I also did a number of times in the past. Mmorpgs should develop as FIRST PRIORITY a flexible server structure that balances the server load, population and PvP factions, while avoiding to build barriers between players. For me this means "server travel" as a basic, exposed mechanic built in the game. I don't care about the implementation. But your game MUST remove barriers between players, must let them meet together easily. If there are barriers these MUST be passable. Permeable. So if there are barriers they must be temporary. The "sharding" should never be a cage to separate players permanently.
2- Game structure. Let's build games as worlds that can live and flourish. Let's develop systems well connected between each other, with a solid function. And let's develop them so that the whole structure is well developed and maintained, so that the game doesn't become stale for new players who finish confined in forgotten and deserted parts of the game. A new player when starting the game should be presented with a vibrant, lively, active world and community. Not an abandoned zone. The game should be considered and developed cohesively, not just focusing on the last segment of a linear development scheme. Not toward a dispersive drift that will necessarily bring to a decline. Let's not build these games so that they can be easily replaced, let's build them so that they become solid structures on which you can capitalize. Solid foundations on which you continue to build and improve. Not castles of cards. Not perpetuating mistakes just so you can fuel and hype unnecessary sequels.
3- Remove gaps and barriers that prevent players to have fun together. Instead of FORCING grouping, let's make grouping not a chore. Let's keep the power differential between new and veteran players narrow so that they can join their friends, play and have fun within the first hours in the game, right as they are comfortable doing so after they learnt the ropes of the game. And not after months of grind/work. Let's build a structure of the game to keep the community together and focused instead of scattered along an infinite treadmill. And let's give player's classes flexibility (for example directly through class switching and alternate paths, without having to relog new characters) so that a group can be put together quickly without having to waste time waiting for a specific class, letting players ADAPT their characters to the group.
These aren't vague and abstract principles. These are founding values. These aren't game "wishes" aimed toward a specific game or preference. These are actual EMERGENCIES in all today's mmorpgs.
Design priorities. Everything else is subordinate. Setting, combat system, gameplay, these are all secondary. There may be millions of different and valid answers to those three problems. But we MUST provide answers to them. I don't care what the answers are (mines or someone else's), but I do care that they are aimed there.
So, dev people out there, lets agree on these basic principles and do something to start moving in that direction? Let's at least have the will to go there.
Submitted by Abalieno on January 3, 2007 - 19:46.
I post and break my own rules again because I don't like to leave things open and because I don't want to push the flames any further in the place that produced all this.
I'm referring to the thread on F13, the first post from Mark Jacobs, my reply later on the thread, and all that happened afterwards.
Lum took offense and I should have imagined that before writing what I wrote. But my point wasn't against Lum, his site, the bans and all the drama. My critics were about what happened AFTERWARDS. The U-turn in Mythic's stance toward the community. The order from Mark Jacobs to Mythic's staff to never post again on those forums. The delegitimization of the community that legitimated them in the first place. And then, along the years, the progressive, constant deterioration of that relationship with the community.
In fact I always PRAISED what Mythic *was* doing on ltm/SND as I always praised devs that are genuinely interested in a discussion and that keep in touch with the community. Those who know me also know that I always sided for a more open, sincere and constructive relationship and nothing changed in my stance.
I DO believe that ltm/SND was the real "Camelot Herald" but I also believe that the good feedback wasn't malicious and it was also coming from that close relationship. Keeping in touch with the community, interpret its needs. I do believe that that process was positive both for Mythic, DAoC and the players. But as I said there was an U-turn at some point, that I identified with that post from Mark Jacobs I quoted and that then progressed along the years. Till today. Today Mythic is completely out of touch with the community and that is also one of the reasons why what is left of DAoC is only a very pale shade.
Why I went necroposting that quote? Because it was happening again. It was as new as it has always been.
My point is very simple: I don't believe that Mark Jacobs is genuinely interested in a discussion.
That request to open a private forum for him was stupid and wrong on many levels. Mark Jacobs NEVER looked for an honest, passionate discussion. He NEVER participated in our communities. He NEVER gave a damn about anything if not "bullying" his community of choice tricking people to welcome him like a king by promising gifts, beta slots and "WAR swag".
There are other devs that ARE part of our communities. Brad McQuaid has often used FoH's forums in the last years to hype his game, Smed and in particular Scott Hartsman also participated in our discussions and today Scott is one of the most respected and esteemed out there BECAUSE of his attitude and sincerity in dealing with the community. The newly born GMG also had a strong presence on the forums and blogs. Raph Koster has always been everywhere and the one who THE MOST always looked for a real participation, who really wanted and encouraged that dialogue more than anyone else.
So what's the difference between all these people (and I left out MANY) and Mark Jacobs? That ALL these peoples have demonstrated along the months and the years that their interest is GENUINE. That they share a passion and that they are interested in a real dialogue.
Mark Jacobs has NEVER given a damn about anything. If not appearing a few days ago on F13 after not having written ONE post in more than two years and abruptly asking them to open a private forum for him where he could do as he please and feel (along with his game) the center of the attention (actually he's even confused about what he's asking). When I saw a bunch of long time members of this community taking the "bait" I felt the need to say what I said.
In the meantime he flamed me back, trying to make believe that I registered on F13 just to troll him. Excuse me, my ideas may be considered shit, but I think I HAVE demonstrated along these years that my passion in these games is SINCERE and that I do love to talk about game design and that I DO look for that kind of constructive, collaborative dialogue MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE ON THE INTERNET. And sorry if I'm not modest in this case, but my passion is not questionable. With this site and my constant participation in the community I believe that AT LEAST I demonstrated that.
If Mark Jacobs was TRULY interested in a participation with the community then he would have done it before. There are hundreds of ways to look for and have that dialogue. From blogs that would fit exactly his selective mindset, as they allow you to discuss what you want to discuss, give credit to who you want to give credit and ignore who you want to ignore, to forums of all kinds.
Other devs are already encouraging that dialogue without any stupid dedicated private forum to bully. But the real point is that, private forum or not, Mark Jacobs couldn't care less about that kind of involvement and participation. Because he thinks he is superior to all that. And because of that superiority he went asking for the "special treatment" that NO OTHER DEV has never even imagined to ask before.
As on a game forum it is valid the principle: "Who you are is secondary and what matters is that we are equals talking about games".
So what you say and not the color of your name.
Asking to open a private forum devoted to you and where you decide who has the right to speak and who doesn't, surely isn't a good way to encourage an honest and unbiased discussion. It's just an attempt to manipulate things as you please. Later in that thread (and in a MILLION of other occasions) we have demonstrated that we can have that meaningful, honest discussion about games without the need of any private forum or special policies. But of course Mark Jacobs deserted the thread at that point.
In the end I do HATE perpetuating drama and flames because it stresses and empties me to no end and I don't take back any satisfaction. If Mark Jacobs is honestly interested discussing games and ideas then he is more then welcome to prove me wrong. I'm just forcing him to drop his mask.
(and my apologies to Lum because he was brought in a wrong discussion)
Submitted by Abalieno on November 25, 2006 - 17:18.
If you have a passion for game design you are out of luck, because everyone thinks that he can do a better work than you.
The truth is that game design has no dignity. It's FALSE that evaluating "game design" is harder than evaluating good art or a good programmer. And it shows. There are out there plenty of games that have terrible engineering or terrible art. There is the exact same amount of arbitrariety. If game design hasn't a value on its own it's because it has no DIGNITY. And the reason why many games suffer is because of that. You CANNOT be a game designer because you have studied and researched it, because you have dedicated all yourself to it.
While you CAN AND HAVE to study to become a good programmer, you aren't allowed to do the same if your discipline is game design. Because "game design" is only a "prize title", a BADGE you win as reward if you are good at doing something else. Even if you are incompetent in your new role.
You become a game desiger only because you "happen" to be one, as a "drift" from another position that may have nothing to share with game design. It's like a lottery. Since game design has no dignity and concrete presence on its own, people are told that they must be good at CS, or good programmers, or good artists, or whatever. People finish to work as game designers even if they LACK that competence. Because training and study are considered superfluous for this discipline. Maybe those same people will become good designers, with the time.
It's acquired, not prerequired for the role. You are allowed to study and learn game design only *after* you received that title. So we have good designer who became *good* desigers AFTER they have been promoted to that role. Because game design is considered a SUBPRODUCT of other disciplines and a "reward" if you did well something completely unrelated. Because there's no real training. In the meantime games suck because many game designers are promoted from programming and bringing with them a wrong, convoluted mentality that is pretty obvious on many, many titles.
Game design is *its own* discipline, not the reward for a career achieved through other competencies.
So the problem is that there isn't a culture of game design, and because there isn't one that game design falls behind, is considered something that EVERYONE can do. Something trivial, something superfluous. Often a reward or prize that has nothing to share with the competence that is being rewarded in the first place. It's the model and the attitude to be wrong. This is a commonplace that should be fought, because it's damaging this industry.
And finally, why this website cannot work as a portfolio? It shows how my brain works, it shows the way I approach problems, it shows how I analyze, it shows my critics, what I think of the genre, my approach, my ideas. It shows the way I communicate to people, the way I look for a dialogue and a confrontation, the way I answer to critics and MORE. I don't see as this has less value than someone showing a portfolio with some drawings or a DVD with 3D works in Maya or 3D studio. I CAN see out there who has good, solid ideas that are possible that I would like expressed in a game, I can see who doesn't. In a similar way as I can, arbitrarily, say if someone can make good or bad art.
And if I can ALSO make a great mod for UT2004, HL2, NWN2 then I'm showing a different kind of competence that may be irrelevant for a MMO. And this without even recognizing that game design is a so broad concept that has many other different disciplines within. Each of those requiring its own competence and expertise. Each of those requiring study and specialization. The game designer who does world building doesn't have the same competencies of the game designer who writes and scripts quests, or the game designer who designs the UI, or the game designer who writes the backstory, or the game designer who directs PvP, or the game designer who creates and balances classes, or the game designer who takes care of the economic systems.
What is missing isn't the concrete material or the possibility to prove a competence. What is missing is the recognition of a discipline that just hasn't been granted DIGNITY on its own.
The REAL wrong message is that you can "eventually" become a game designer even if you never studied or dedicated yourself to it.
Logic would say that if you want to do something and be good at it you have to study it. No, not for game design. Do something else. Studying game design is superfluous and competence an optional.
That's the truth that no one will tell you in all those "breaking in" pages.
Submitted by Abalieno on November 16, 2006 - 02:44.
Let me spend some words and connect some dots about this that I was thinking these last days. At what point are we with these game communities? If you read the quote that Lum has taken out (and the other) you can see that the scenario isn't a very positive one. It's not really what we would have portrayed, not what we would have wished.
Hey, that's the same Lum behind the ltm.net community. The "golden age" that I almost completely missed (and lament). What we learnt? Where we are today? Is this what we really wanted? Is this all we got?
Today's communities like F13 exist on completely different premises, I think. The "meaning" isn't anymore into a "referent" outside, like MMOs. That's just the expedient for something else that became the real subject of the community itself. That is now self-referential. The community is more about itself, its own habits, characters and so on. Games can be an excuse. Ubiq would define this the "corner bar". Lum also described perfectly all this in an article he wrote on the occasion of one anniversary of F13 and that must be still there, somewhere.
I usually lose interest and participation in those communities as that happens because I hardly integrate myself in those processes, and also because it's not part of my original goal. See, the point is that I seem to be the only one left who still remembers the original goal. The original "mission".
So what's this original mission and motivation?
To that question I usually quote GBob: "Lum the Mad was riding high with his web site, forcing game companies to engage the player base in a real dialog". But from a broader point of view I'd say that the mission is to "do our part". Become part of the process. Contribute. Participate. That's why I found the courage and arrogance to "invade" the forums and communities with my broken english. I never lost the sight on that mission. A mission that was supposed to be what we ALL had in common, what we all shared. Sensitize, discuss, polemize. Follow, help and accompany the process that can bring to better games. To be part of it somehow.
I'm the only one who's still waving that flag?
Those communities were and are important. They may degenerate into cesspits, but you can find a lot that is valuable in there. Even if I don't think, contrarily to what Raph wrote (about me, even), that this is a growing trend. What I see is that game companies actively suffocate that kind of dialogue because they think it's an attack to their own identity, a risk. So we get empty community support, PR and all the current "politically correct" and "professional" behaviours that are concretely just a determinate removal of that kind of direct relationship that we fought for. A few like Raph are left. But they are now just outsiders and unique cases instead of a growing trend that we contributed to build and develop. The point is: we are losing that battle, if not lost already.
Why I'm not satisfied by current MMO companies?
Not because games are "flawed" and the flaws unforgivable, but because of the general situation. The gap between developers and the community is GROWING, not shrinking as we all hoped. Instead of training new blood, new enthusiasm and passion for this genre, we have what Megyn defined twenty years of incest. We lack a positive, constructive culture. We lack that kind of "humus" from where the developers of tomorrow will come. I ranted a lot in the past when I saw always the same names jumping from company to company and, from my point of view, lacking the passion and commitment that are a necessity in this genre. But it is also true that the problem isn't just of the dev who decided to leave a company for another, but also of the company that made that dev flee because he wasn't put in the condition to do his work at best. So the problem runs deeper.
What I'd like to see?
I'd like to see a game company that is more responsive and aware. More alive and human. That isn't ashamed or scared of a dialogue with the players, but that actually promotes and encourages it. A company that pushes the evolution of the genre instead of being VICTIM OF IT. Anticipate the trends instead of being caught off guard. A company that can produce a game that doesn't start to sink just one year down the road. With the ambition to stay and leave a sign. A dev studios that doesn't need a new brand or flag where to hide behind every couple of years because they have burnt the previous one. And this isn't just about game design, but also about technology. The technology must be more flexible and powerful. This obviously needs work and time, it needs traning, study and research both inside and outside.
But if this is true then why EVERY MMO company has two, three, four MMOs in development when they can HARDLY support one?
Submitted by Abalieno on August 25, 2006 - 17:15.
I thought about this while commenting the EQ2's video here below.
Have you noticed how in ALL mmorpgs ALL the monsters ALWAYS move just in straight lines? They aggro and run to you, or they flee, more or less randomly. In between there's not much.
One of the things that caught my attention while I was playing God of War is how all the monsters had rather complex movement patterns that I would find hard even to describe technically. Complex rotations, retreats, fast dodges. They all look rather "fuzzy". Not so easy to recognize and predict, in particular when you fight more than one at the same time.
That's another element that has significant role in that game and one that completely misses in mmorpgs: the movement.
And another that I would really like being developed more, both aesthetically and for gameplay (different movement patterns during combat).
Add it to the "realistic aggro behaviours", and mobs attacking in organized groups (unfinished post).
Think how much it would be cool to assault a goblin camp and have all those goblins start to fight in groups, parse the environment to take cover behind trees/tents as they fire arrows at you and while another small squad of three or four are running toward you to engage in melee.
And then you can work to "branch up" from a typical goblin mob to create a number of different variations, depending on the weapons and armor they use, their rank and so on. Instead of one mob type cloned everywhere, you would obtain a more organic environment that could offer much more interesting and deep gameplay.
This is again what the genre has still to offer. You just need to not stop at a very superficial level and "dig the myth".
Then again, there are technical hurdles to overcome. This goes along with the lack of "physicalness". The sense of contact, weight, solidity. In mmorpgs everything that moves is immaterial. You cannot reach out and "touch". You just move through. Phantom-like. This isn't just a limit for the emotes (cannot really "hug", for example), but also for the combat, where you never really feel an impact. Stuns and roots are as far you can get. The monster cannot, for example, grab your arm and toss you away, or jump on you and keep you blocked under his weight. And if you are disarmed you are only losing the use of your weapon for a certain amount of time, you don't see your weapon bouncing away and you don't have to jump after it to use it again.
I think next-gen games will have to start to delve more on those patterns, see what's doable and push some more the technology.
That's innovation too. Without the need to look at other genres or fancy business models to experiment.
Submitted by Abalieno on July 19, 2006 - 09:44.
It's from a while that I believe that "prototyping" is an overrated design approach. I always believed that a game should be done exactly as it was imagined, as close as possible to the idea that sits in the mind of the designer. I believe in a strong "vision" and direction and I don't accept that a "prototype" is going to tell me what works and what doesn't. I think it's just a way to get fooled.
In short I think that prototyping is a bad way to figure out whether an idea works or not, whether it's fun or not. In fact I believe that the conclusions coming as a result of those tests will likely be misleading.
To explain myself better I could oppose to that approach its theoretical negation: take the worst concept and reiterate long enough, and I'm sure you can make something fun out of it.
That's what I believe making games is like. You persist doing something that just doesn't seem to work, trying instead to make it work as you imagined it. It's a strife. A prototype will just tell you that the idea sucks. But persist long enough and I'm sure you'll finally reach your goal, and suddendly everything will start to work exactly as you imagined. Making a great game that finally can be recognized by everyone else. "Recognizing" is the key because that's the function of a prototype, and, still, it's what that approach does worse.
I believe that "game design" is "working against the odds". A designer is a fool that noone can understand what he is saying. Someone who speaks in a tongue you don't understand. A stranger. But, one day, he arrives and shows what he meant for all that time. And a standing ovation explodes, like an epiphany.
Game design is an epiphany. It's a concrete way to let people step in your head and finally understand and participate. It's an happy end. A catharsis.
And you cannot "test" a catharsis. You cannot anticipate an epiphany. Those things only happen when there's a strong will behind.
This is why I believe that game design should always start from a strong *necessity* and that should always follow a definite direction. It's a volitional act. NOT experimentation. The experimentation is just for the scientist, for someone who cannot shape anything in his own mind. For a designer in search of ideas.
But the "true" designer isn't in search of ideas. He has an overflow of ideas.
I believe that prototyping is necessary only in the measure it becomes an "enabler" for the reiteration: a prototype is often something self-contained, so offering the requirements for the reiteration to start and refine the model. It's about execution, not about the concept. The concept is a "black box". It should never be tested, never doubted. It's... faith.
--
All this after the announce of Valve's Portal. It's not really something that Valve built, but more something that Valve bought (the company website is currently down due to high bandwidth usage).
I tried the concept demo (mirror) but I wasn't so impressed. It gave me a strong nausea right away (due to the inertia in the walking movement more than the portaling stuff, most likely) and I had to stop just past the third or fourth room (the one with the boulders). It's a quite simple puzzle game, without some dynamism it's just about discovering the right trick to move to the next room. Immersivity is next to none.
Then dress it up with a retro sci-fi/realistic mood, add a portal-shooting gun, add some more dynamics elements, picking things on the fly and a more realistic physics system and... wow! It's simply awesome.
Great idea to time this on the release of Prey, like if they are mocking them by using the portal technology for something way more innovative.
It's time to go develop a netcode for that. Multiplayer madness.
Submitted by Abalieno on July 3, 2006 - 11:02.
More things to say. In the previous post I underlined the other perspective. The fact that a "dialogue" can be a necessity of the developer with a priority over a need of the community.
Another important assumption is that the dialogue is collaborative, two-ways. For example in this case Lum wrote something, but it's *me* who started a dialogue and it's Lum that will kill it by not replying (a reasonable assumption).
You know? I really do HATE these latest trends with the "blogs". It's not a case that I'm still quite active in the forums. I dread a scenario where everyone has a place where to write and is entitled his own opinions. Everyone with his own ideas and beliefs, his protected, secluded space. Blogging is a danger.
Where the fuck is the dialogue if there is no real confrontation? If there isn't a conflict, an exchange of opinions, a challenge? Where is the synthesis? The dialectic?
It's like if we have all these blogs, but we all ignore each other. Like if we live trapped, each in his own cubicle with transparent walls, but you cannot move to reach out and actually have a confrontation. Everything passive, convoluted and, in the end, absolutely useless, meaningless.
This past week I've seen an amusing Argentinean movie hypothesizing a society where people don't cook anymore. They simply order food from "Tiffany's". The food will arrive in record time, delivered directly to your home, still hot. They don't make food, they fulfill your dreams. They can prepare every kind of food you can imagine, the exact way you desire it. In this kind of society noone eats together anymore. Every single person has his own particualr favourite food that is different from everyone else. In this society there aren't anymore any kind of relationships because everyone is on his own, with his own personal desires, promptly delivered and fulfilled. No need anymore to deal with others, confrontate, find compromises. To the point that the only normal relationship will be the result of a mistake: two orders are accidentally swapped and the wrong food delivered to the wrong person, which will lead to two people meeting and then rediscover a kind of relationship that didn't exist anymore (basically they make sex).
That's pretty much the awful trend I'm noticing. We have all these blogs but it's like a new way to completely ignore each other. Everyone just has his own personal space. Instead of creating a community or a culture, instead of participating together, we are just sailing toward isolation. We are losing identity, belonging to a group. Building something together.
And you know the trend. We are moving toward a future where each player will be able to create his own, personal mmorpg. What a FRIGHTENING NIGHTMARE!
If we don't meet together anymore, if we don't confrontate, if we don't work together, well... we are going to lose everything.
Everything.
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 accessibility and polish, is all focused on "progress". Not just in character power, don't let the appearance fool you. But also and in particular in "escalation". This is something that WoW does MUCH better than EQ2, for example. Meaning the way it leads you around the zones and then progressively adding more and more elements, with the world really starting small and then branching up. Sense of wonder. It's a sense of progression that follows the whole game and that really involves much more than the character. It involves the world outside and the way the game, step by step, adds elements to the puzzle. Brush strokes that progressively realize an impressive painting. This hooks the players better than everything else because the game not only gives you the correct amount of short-term goals, but also long term expectations and revelations.
There's a problem in this model, though. It gets spoiled. The first time you go through it is really the best experience you've ever had, but once it is spoiled, the sense of wonder and perfect progression don't work anymore. You can create alts, explore the starting zones you haven't seen yet, but it's never like the first time through. After three-four alts it even starts to get annoying. Blizzard is planning for new races and starting zones in the expansion but just adding those won't work. It's the model of the game that gets spoiled and you know already what type of progression and what kind of content you are going to see. "Reskinning" this experience won't do the trick because the experienced player has already generalized all that type of content (kill ten rats, get ten pelts, these are generalizations). He knows already how things work, he knows already that type of "escalation".
The game doesn't impress anymore, it loses its original, strong emotional impact.
The strength of WoW, and the reason why it will continue to be successful, is that for the brand new players this type of perfect progression is retained at no loss. You could have started to play when the game was released or start to play now and you aren't going to miss anything. The game is so carefully balanced that it will be preserved perfectly, while other mmorpgs age horribly and become nearly impossible for a brand new player to get into. Impassable barriers that isolate the "before" and "after" of the community. Which leads to a stagnation and the consequent slow drift into oblivion. It's not just about the "retention" of the subscriptions. It is rumored that WoW has a rather bad retention but one year and half later and it still sells more than 50k boxes each month just in NA. Without new players a mmorpg doesn't go anywhere and old mmorpgs don't lose those new players because they look old. But because the accessibility of the game fell to pieces as a consequence of bad design choices and models.
Often the "good" endgame is about the PvP. The majority of the ideas on Nerfbat, in particular those that I consider valid, are about PvP. It's not a case. "Stalling" is a good mechanic for PvP. Similarly to how the convergence is much more appropriate than divergence in PvP. If every couple of weeks there's an alien invasion on the world that completely destabilizes the PvP scenario, the players would be pissed off. Because the best mechanic for a PvP environment is a "stall". A fixed situation where then the players can manipulate some elements and play their game. But something under their control, not something impromptu or surprising. The "endgame" works in PvP because it is a stalling situation. Finally no other elements come to disrupt the conditions and the players "converge" in a similar situation. PvP needs this sort of "space" to exist. A set situation that reunites the players instead of dispersing them.
What's the endgame in WoW? Well, you cannot gain anymore levels so what is left to do is improve your gear. As a design model it doesn't seem really motivated, it is a silly idea. So why we arrived to it? The biggest game out there cannot be founded on something completely unmotivated, it would be crazy.Well, we arrived to that model not as a design choice, but as a productive one. A "progression" game is like football. You move horizontally, as a front. You cannot move backwards, it would be an heresy (see how hated are exp losses on a death). You are doomed to go on. At some point the game ends because the developers could add only so much content, it's always a finite space (and randomly generated content is also still finited) so, eventually, you arrive at the end. And what then? What am I chasing? The "endgame" here isn't a "necessity" of game design. It's just a necessity of the production. An excuse so that, despite the game is over, the players could feel motivated to continue to play and pay. "Raiding" is in this case the perfect choice to bind that request with a type of content that is structurally redundant and vain.
Think to the "main game" as a bait. Once they "fished" you they can throw you in a bucket of water and keep you there for a long while. Raiding is that "bucket of water".
The absurdity that I often underlined is that this model that is supposed to "preserve" content, since it's the most precious and scarce resource in the game, does exactly the opposite. It *erodes* content and removes it from the game since it's heavily based on the mudflation. Instead of valorizing ALL that the game has to offer, this kind of model just keeps devaluing and replacing constantly. As a continue, counterproductive reaction that finishes just to put a strain these worlds till they collapse.
So is this really the best model to use? Or maybe it is just a spontaneous drift and negative "maturation" (sophistication) of a genre that has lost track of its true principles and drive?
Let's imagine a different scenario and let's say that the content team has finished a small zone with all its quests, dungeons and overall story arc that unifies the various parts. A month later the zone is patched in the game but this time ALL the players can enter and experience it. The player who just bought the game and has been playing for a week as the veteran player who has kept an account for two years. And hopefully they'll even play side by side.
This doesn't mean that the sense of progression should be completely lost since all the content is always accessible. See for example these ideas. My idea is more like a collection of story lines. These can be totally independent or connected. But, while separated, they would retain their own linearity. In a game like WoW this already happens. There are story lines and themed quests, think for example to an instance and all the quests that are linked to it to form a story. Where that model doesn't really work is in the fact that those stories (even a bit too limited in potential) are limited by level. If you skip a part, going back wolud be rather silly. So my idea is about freeing these storylines so that the content never gets obsolete and remains always interesting for the same character. With no distictions between the "endgame" and the rest.
And yes, at the end there could be those ideas vaguely outlined on Nerfbat. But not as a "BAM! endgame". Not as a sudden event that completely changes the game you are playing. But as an evolution from the current model to one that contemplates all these possibilities right from the start. My idea of "gated content".
The idea of the player (and character) as a "traveler of worlds". Who passes smoothly (the idea of "permeable barriers") thorugh different types of content (PvP, group, single player, raid etc..) depending on his personal preference more than external imposition.
I imagine the design concept of the "gated content" visually like a number of portals that can be opened and that lead the character exactly to that type of gameplay he is looking for. A number of "opened doors". Possibilities available. The character is an "enabler" but the lack of a level system keeps the choice always "flat" and valid instead of higly selective. The "traveler of worlds" is the idea of a character that isn't strictly defined, but a roleplay point of view. Ideally that character could enter a portal and become a level 1 guy. Or enter another portal and become a level 50. Or enter another again and become a merchant. The same from the point of view of the content. Dungeons runs, epic raids, PvP territorial conquest, tournaments, storylines. These elements should work like portals that should never be dependent on a obligatory, imposed choice. The game shouldn't cage you into one pattern or one role. It's the player who decides what he wants to experience.
In a sandbox all the options should be available and valorized. And not as in SWG where the game was trying to lock you in one role to preclude all the rest the game had to offer.
These realities should coexist as possibilities.
There are four main points that should be at the center and that I continue to repeat:
- Accessibility
- Immersion
- Gated content
- Permeable barriers
What's the concrete consequence of all this? How concretely changes the game? For example the raid content wouldn't be anymore the obligatory "endgame", nor the only option you have past a certain point. The raid content would be just one *type* of content always available and always valid (and if you want to know concretely my idea of raid content, motivations, execution and reward, look here). Along with all the other types of content/patterns that the game has to offer.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 30, 2006 - 20:41.
Hundred of new mmopgs are being announced and NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS ONE GOOD IDEA.
People are predicting now that the market will saturate. It doesn't make much sense after the exploit of WoW but "believing in WoW' would be like believing to the latest new trend. Instead trends are there to be broken, and from my point of view it's beacause of WoW that there are now signs that the market is saturating.
This is what Jeff Strain (Guild Wars Exec Producer) has seen in this genre:
What people didn’t realize was that if you’re hard core enough to pay a subscription for a game you’re not going to do it with 2 games or 3 games or 8 games. You’re really only going play one game a year. What we saw was it was kind of stifling people’s ability to give them the freedom to go try a bunch of different games like you would normally do. Also once you got into it you were kind of forced to make this choice: either this is going to be a lifestyle commitment for me or I’m going to devote all my gaming hours to playing this one game.
There is truth in these comments. I've often repeated that this genre comes from an history of niche appeal. Hardcore players dedicated to THIS genre more like a "vocation" than just a general gaming culture. It was a world on its own, a world with an high price of admittance and that built its own community above the single title exactly because we all had something in common.
Now those communities are becoming weaker because the confines are blurred and this genre isn't anymore a matter of an handful of a selected players. It is getting exposed to the large public and drawing the attention and legitimation of the non-specialized media. It is harder for a player to recognize himself in a group now. There isn't anymore a strong identity for the mmorpg players. We aren't anymore "special".
The result of all this is two folds. The first part is that the market is expanding. WoW didn't exactly demonstrate that the market is expanding at an increased pace, but more like that the market doesn't have a defined dimension. If you reinvent it, it can be much larger, or much smaller. It is malleable, it cannot be "observed" or predicted. It doesn't need outsider analysts because it's a brand new space. And, as a brand new space, it has no rules.
But how WoW was able to rack up a large number of subscribers (not players, subscribers) beside launching everywhere? From my point of view, WoW isn't an exception to the rule, it confirms it. I believe that WoW really reinvented the market but without changing its rules. It is often seen as a not innovative game, it just took all the influences in the genre and worked to make them well-olied, simplified. Removing the great majority of the Bad Habits and leaving behind the overcomplication that was plaguing the genre. It didn't invented anything but it addressed exactly what the genre, and the market, needed: the accessibility.
The significant element in WoW's growth is that it cleared the genre of its "hardcore" status. From there the conflict between "casual players Vs hardcore" that the game wasn't able to solve.
In fewer words: WoW resolved the past of this genre, but it doesn't represent its future.
We'll have to wait for future titles (or former companies to wake up, but it won't happen till it's too late) to move past that point, to overcome the current trend, with a new one. It is obviously a path of obsolescence because the genre is immature and it still has a long way to go. You cannot sit down in a point because that's not what it is needed now. And I'm in the minority saying that these virtual worlds shouldn't become static oasis punctuating the history and evolution of this genre, but that they should move along with it. Accompany it. Fulfilling their unique vocation and quality.
At the very origin of all these considerations there is the fact that you need to have *an idea* to bring something to this genre. Do you want just a slice of the pie or do you know the ingredients that are missing? My impression, back to where I started, is that hundred of new mmorpgs are being announced but none of them seem to bring anything valuable to this genre. They seem doomed to become just short-lived comets generating a couple of threads on a mmorpg forum as they are launched to be then forgotten while trying to survive in their small niche in the following months.
These "lesser" mmorpgs try to survive in the interstices between the bigger titles, with the vain hope to become big titles themselves. But where are the premises to achieve that status? Where are the ideas?
This brings back to what Jeff Strain said above. The mmorpg market is a particular one. It's not the same of single player games and follows completely different rules. This market is much more competitive because it's not just a matter of placing a product, but a matter of winning an audience in the longer term. To create bonds with the players. To create a virtual world that can walk and evolve on its own, as a "vituous world". Buy "shares" of that world, becoming part of it. Sharing an identity.
A lot more than being seduced for a few hours of satisfying playtime.
Some people, like Raph or Jeff Strain up here, believe that the only way to break this trend and generate a new one is to introduce a new business model that could break the accessibility barrier of the subscription fee. Discarding the very foundation of the mmorpg model. This could lure more potential players in, possibly for free (like the hypotetical game that SOE is supposed to develop right now), and then get money from different sources like RMT or content-on-demand. In a second moment this becomes even a strategy involving the content of the games: the plurality of genres (past the fantasy cliche) and the "bite-sized" games.
This is exactly the "Blue Ocean strategy" or, in simpler words, "thinking out of the box". Change the rules.
I'm bringing all this up because I'm not in that group. That's not the faction I'm fighting for. It's not what I'd like to see. This doesn't mean that I see that approach as faulty (but I also don't see it any less risky), but it implies a shift of interest to completely diffent products. It's not just a way to "present" the same thing.
Instead I'm here for the mmorpgs in their original premise (like: "the immersion" as a founding value). Of course not in their original bad habits and flaws. But I see a future, advancement and innovation in THIS genre. Not in a new one. I like this precise thing that I see right now as both faulty and promising. But I'm not a developer trying to find a new space. I'm just "a player" who is passionate about this precise thing. Investing in this.
If the market is competitive it doesn't mean that it must be played out. That's exclusively the perspective of the businessman. A subscription model isn't just a way to sell a product. It is a way to define it. Part of what it is. You can reinvent the market but you cannot give us "what we want".
There are always two different fronts. One is about expanding the market to new and completely different products, the other is about advancing a specific genre. I am interested and strongly believe in the second.
Now the point is: all those hundreds of new mmorpgs that are being developed don't fall in any of the two categories. They aren't new products, nor they bring new ideas.
I really don't know what to think.
Submitted by Abalieno on April 28, 2006 - 15:17.
Dave Rickey: There are a lot of lessons Eve can teach us. But let’s not go off half-cocked and learn the wrong ones. Eve’s business position is so unique, it serves only as an outlier, a boundary point that shows what can happen, when a game has a niche to itself that grows so slowly that it attracts no competitors.
--
Raph recently put together some predictions about this industry and people nodded their heads in agreement. I have many thoughts about this but it's not easy to put all of them together in a simple thesis. I'll throw some of the thoughts here and maybe I'll find a thread.
The first point to consider is that I find those previsions vague. At some point I could imagine me commenting, "It went exactly the opposite of what you said." and Raph, "No, it went exactly as I said". Some of those predictions are plausible (like the online distribution), you could even argue that the scenario he portrays is already here. More like a description than a prediction. But the title says "next-gen". Next-gen supposes that things will change and this is exactly the apocalyptic scenario that both Lum and Psychochild have perceived. A tone confirmed by Raph himself:
Looking out at the future, what I see is an extinction-level event.
That sounds quite different from a description of the current scenario, it implies some huge paradigm shifts, innovation, revoloutions. Exciting times!
Well, my predictions are much more shocking than that: things will remain almost exactly as you see them now.
If you observe the situation with a huge magnifier then everything you'll see will also appear huge and exhalted, but the truth is that it all falls in the average "normality". Raph seems to predict significant changes, in particular he focuses on the extinction of the majority of the large projects for the rise of the indie companies. A plurality of offers, tiny blocks of innovation. The "spring of all the new species". Even a new growth of the PC gaming market!
My suspect is that Raph wrote that while asleep and dreaming. A pretty, positive scenario that he wishes more than one he expects, I think. Again we could argue that all this is already happening. But where is the prediction? If it's just a relative point of view the discussion would be pretty much null, what you see as "huge" and "next", I see as "small" and "current". Without an objective platform we don't go anywhere. That scenario is already here or it is an incoming revolution? Because if it's already here then I don't see it as "huge", I see it as "negligible". Are things really going to change significantly? And for who?
Who will say what is "next-gen" when it will finally arrive? Because my suspect is that everyone will have a different opinion. Everyone will be convinced to be right even if everyone says a different thing.
So let's focus on the three points I find relevant to discuss, at least:
- The Big Guys will crumble under their own weight
- Smaller, indie companies will flourish everywhere with a plurality of ideas
- Everyone will be happy (the market will grow, there will be more space for individuality and the offer will be richer)
Do you really believe that this is going to happen or you just wish that it is going to happen? My opinion is that things will change only if you go look in detail at every small trend, pretty much as things can already be seen from many different points of view right now. This is why I say that nothing significant is going to happen anytime soon. The genre will mature. Maturity usually brings to specialization more than variety. I don't think we'll see a plurality, I think instead that we'll see a consolidation.
See? Things are already much different and still the same, at the same time. I say there will be a consolidation but this implies that there will be failures, projects going nowhere. This scenario not only is something already happening under everyone's eyes, but it may even fall in that first point about the Big Guys.
It is going to be extremely hard for medium-sized companies to compete in the mmorpg market. There's a race for the leadership. The upcoming scenario is an oligarchy. A few, consolidated titles, with dedicated development teams. The great majority of the companies that found their own space won't have an easy, quiet life. They will have to fight and there will be losses because those smaller spaces will become more desirable when the market will saturate. This isn't a process of extinction, this is a process of selection and assimilation. It isn't even a trend specific of this industry. The mass market implies an hegemony. It's the Borg process of assimilation and transformation. Things that will be rejected will be excluded, but after the process started it doesn't stop, like the excessive growth of WoW. Beyond the normality. There's a point where it transforms in a flood, the mass market culture permeates and convinces. Conforms and uniforms.
Who will survive in this scenario? The indie companies or at least the smaller sized ones that won't fit in the Uber Oligarchy will only survive if they don't draw any attention. Live of breadcrumbs. When they'll rise their head and draw the attention they will get assimilated or wiped away. Or a project is too tiny to be relevant, or it will draw attention and it will be eaten alive. This is what happens when you draw attention. The Big Guys and every mass culture trend never live of innovation. Innovation would kill mass culture. They live of assimilation. They slowly recycle what happens around them. In this scenario the indie companies aren't "next-gen", they are just food for the dinosaurs.
What is sure is that the dinosaurs will continue to rule this land and decide what happens on a significant level. Maybe the small companies will have the blind illusion of being the center of the world, but they will only exist as long the dinosaurs want, as long they get unnoticed, as long they remain negligible. As long they don't harm. As long they don't poke their heads out of their holes.
And in the case they try to do that... ROADKILL!!
Submitted by Abalieno on April 10, 2006 - 04:28.
"I think, therefore I'm virtuous".
The thought started from a derailed discussion about "what is a virtual world".
--
Raph was on this (the definition of virtual world) recently.
Virtual worlds are implemented by a computer (or network of computers) that simulates an environment. Some — but not all — the entities in this environment act under the direct control of individual people. Because several such people can affect the same environment simultaneously, the world is said to shared or multi-user. The environment continues to exist and to develop internally (at least to some degree) even when there are no people interacting with it; this means it is persistent.
The quote is from Richard Barttle, though. But I agree. The core concept is the persistence. The "objectivity" of some parts and the depth and variety of interactions, where these interactions don't happen linearly but in a systemic relationship (elements within a set, so where each can be potentially linked with everything else instead of elements one after the other, where each element is only linked to the previous and the next).
There's no precise definition of a virtual world, but the more there is "persitence", variety of interactions and systemic complexity, the more you go closer to a legitimate virtual world.
These definitions come right from sociology since a virtual world is exactly a complex system.
"Virtual world" and "sandbox" are synonymous to an extent.
Put in another way: if the author dies, the world continues on its own. This is another interesting definition. If we assume that god is dead we can think of reality as a virtual world :)
--
Now you would wonder what's the logic sense that brings to that last line, because there is none. The truth is that I was quickly writing while chasing multiple thoughts spawning all at once and I jumped at that odd conclusion without explaining how I landed on it.
The original thought was that the "objectivity" of the game is exactly what Raph defines as "the server is authoritative". The keyword and premise for a virtual world, from my point of view, is the persistence, but this persistence is then actualized in different forms and these forms could bring to quite different definitions of "virtual world", where the original element that joins all of them is exactly that persistence actualized in those different forms.
For example let's take three hypothetical virtual worlds: a mmorpg, Oblivion and the Middle Earth. All three could be loosely defined "virtual worlds".
(1) In a mmorpg there's a continuity set by "what happens", you log out and the world continues to exist without you. Its existence is actually independent from the single character. It's a "world" as it has an identity that "emerges" from the level of the single player.
(2) Oblivion is often defined as a sandbox. It is "single player" but it can be considered as a virtual world. It allows you to be who you want, shape your character the way you like and interact with the world with a degree of freedom. Hopefully, observing it react and adapt. This last part is actualized with the levelled lists that spawn mobs and loot to your approriate level, a feature that wasn't really well accepted by the players but that is still an attempt to "allocate freedom" and make the game world "react and adapt". This is the "western" idea we have of RPGs, the player choice, the possibility to create your character the way you like, pursuing different goals and attitudes. The persistence here is in the world. The "context". The strict history, geography and culture of the world where you are immersed. That world is objective and the interaction is between your subjectivity and the impact you have on that objective world.
(3) Finally there's the Middle Earth. Tolkien shaped a virtual world with its own history, cultures, myths, languages and so on. The detail and depth of this world is staggering and it's what transforms it in a virtual world. Tolkien is dead, but the Middle Earth is still alive. Virtual worlds outlive their creators.
That's the first step. Now let's go back at the standard idea of persistence so that I can reach the other core point: the free will.
The persistence of the character in a mmorpg, or the idea of the "objectivity" I quoted above, mean that things happen on a server and not on the client. This ultimately brings to the fact that if you log out (cease to exist) the virtual world continues without you. In a single player game the world is dependent on you. If you aren't there, it doesn't continue on its own in the background. But in a mmorpg the virtual world continues to exist in its own persistence. The core concept here is that you may log in another day and possibly find a different situation: the world has changed. Whether you are there or not.
This specific idea of persistence underlines a weakness in the current mmorpgs: the world never really changes. The truth is that the players have little to no impact on the world. They don't have real choices, they don't really exist. It is not a virtual world.
My idea is that the concept of a virtual world is *tightly connected* to the possibility for the players "to create content". Which doesn't mean that they repleace the content designers of the game creating quests and new zones (or rules). It just means that they should have an impact on the world, the players should become the subject and focus of the game, where the world can be shaped by their hands and choices. The persistence would become real and the virtual world would actively change, becoming the emergent product of the actions and choices of the players. Only in this case someone logging in after a long time would be able to find a world that truly changed, that truly evolved toward something else. A world with a true persistence and that truly puts the players at the center of the experience.
The "emergence" here represent a jump of quality of a whole medium. We don't have anymore a set, objective game with goals strictly defined and pre-planned patterns to discover. Instead we have a game, as a virtual world, that is open to the interpretation.
Give a look at these slides that I keep reusing (still from Raph). Some old quotes:
- We talk so much about emergent gameplay, non-linear storytelling, or about player-entered content. They’re all ways of increasing the possibility space, making self-refreshing puzzles.
- We also often discuss the desire for games to be art - for them to be puzzles with more than one right answer, puzzles that lend themselves to interpretation.
- That may be the best definition of when something ceases to be craft and when it turns into art - the point at which it becomes subject to interpretation.
- Games will never be mature as long as the designers create them with complete answers to their own puzzles in mind.
The "interpretation" here is the keyword. The possibility for the players to define their own patterns, create their own characters, manipulate the game objects the way they like with the possibility to recombine them and define their own personal patterns. There's a degree of "immersion" in all these concepts but I think this definition of "interpretation" doesn't grasps the real value of this discovery.
Raph did a good work to isolate that concept but I believe that his definition doesn't fully discloses its actual value. It's not a sole matter of interpretation. It's instead about a larger, broader concept: Arbitrium - Free Will.
In a world with strictly codified patterns that you are forced to follow and "embody", there's no "free will". There is no responsibility, no guilt, no merit. There aren't true choices, there isn't a subjectivity. You are just forced in a pre-planned path and need to accept it for what it is. The lesson is imposed. The learning process forced into a precise direction. In a world without "free will" there's always a "third power", a god, that is responsible for everything. There aren't other "players" into the system. The world is already set, it has a start and an end right from the first instant it was created and all the elements within this world can exclusively follow a set program on which they have no control nor responsibility. Passive executors who can only observe. There is no judgement, no moral, no facets, but just imposed rules that must remain undiscussed. A fixed state that cannot change in any way. An authoritarian regime. One thought.
My belief is that the ideal of a virtual world goes against this enrooted model to implant not just different, possible interpolations (the interpretations), but the true core that is missing: the "free will". The possibility for the players to self-determine within the virtual world, the possibility of choice. This goes beyond a superficial personalization but opens up the potential of a complex system where the choices you make bring to actual consequences and the game world reacting and adapting to what you do. To what you are. Your "free will". This is what misses to a true virtual world and the ideal to reach. The final myth to pursue.
Now, if you connect all the dots, if you gather all the pieces of the puzzle, you can clearly see the conclusion. The true aim and nature of a virtual world: the emancipation from its creators.
The persistence becomes the state for a virtual world to "continue to exist". Its future will be determined by the emergent behaviours. The possibility for the players to truly react and impact the world where they are going to "exist". The possibility for them to see the true, concrete result of their choices. The possibility for this world to outlive its creators, to constitute a form of persistence that becomes concrete and that is truly affected by the actions of the "players".
The reunion of the three concepts of persistence:
- The world is persistent because it can change, react, adapt, be transformed. (history)
- The world is persistent because it gives the players the possibility to determine themselves. (free will)
- The world is persistent because it is emancipated from its creators and acquires a life and emergence on its own. (maturity)
And, maybe, we'll move from virtual worlds to "virtuous" worlds.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 20, 2006 - 08:14.
This is a loose reply to an article written by Heamish about "The social experience". Not a direct critics but just some thoughts that sprang from reading it.
--
Games are about learning but saying that learning is about getting the reward is a total mistake.
Game design, in particular "good" game design, has the duty to help the player to learn, to educate. Mark my words: NOT TO SELECT.
Many people have this absurdly wrong and wicked idea that learning is about getting evaluated. This is terribly wrong and the first reason why the school is in such a wrecked status and why our societies are filled with hate. We learn everything as division and further selections. Always as distiction between "us and them". Aways between friends and enemies, included and excluded.
The evaluation should come from within. Not from the outside. Originally "education" meant the discovery of oneself. Not shoving in an empty, valueless mind the imposed categories and dictates of a culture.
I always despised and will continue to despise and attack when "learning" becomes a process of selection. I know that this has been a reality of the human evolution, but I just don't accept as something that I justify and second. I just don't as I don't justify murder, even if the murder has also been part of our evolution and history. So we learnt something. Between the things I've learnt is that I despise every process of selection that is aimed to exclude, emarginate and create reasons of hate.
In a lesser extent we already have all these situations in these games and have to relate to. About the social fabric, these games should help to connect, facilitate these patterns, create the context for these situations to exist. But not simply create artificial rewards that would just divide between people who are included and people who are excluded. Not external "divine" interventions.
The reward is the consequence of learning, not its justification. (but in our culture we are already saying that "drugs" are the best route)
This is why my own concrete ideas on these aspects have been about criticizing the artificial dependence on other players, that I find unjustified, to create what I define "truly communal patterns" that are instead coherent with the goal. That promote the integration instead of the separation between groups.
We have already plenty of examples of "communal processes" with egoistical goals. Personal rewards are always egoistical goals, like experience bonuses, achievements, epic loot. These are never truly communal objectives. They are just cooperation enforced through egoistical goals. I had already a quick confrontation with Raph about these points and again these are patterns that belong to our culture. But they aren't patterns that I would promote and reward. They aren't patterns that I consider fun. Even if they exist, the game shouldn't educate the players about them, as the game should never facilitate the players to fight one against the other for a piece of loot. As the game shouldn't facilitate the segregation and the exclusion of players in two groups. Creating tension and attrition between them.
Artificial dependences aren't fun. Having crafting recipes that make you dependent on other crafting professions aren't fun. At least till this process isn't facilitated and made accessible through other structures. If this doesn't happen it becomes another barrier, not an occasion for the socialization. The same about forced grouping leading to sitting in one place flagged /lfg for hours or the requirement to get included into large raids to progress in the game (when that progression is the sole purpose of the game: what it is "teaching"). Killing a dragon to get your fat loot is again a communal process (you need "x" other players) forced through an egoistical drive (I need the fat loot for my own power growth). Limiting the game only to these patterns is a serious mistake that I'll never stop to criticize.
There ARE other examples of truly communal goals but these aren't as easy to identify and are always pushed in the background, always overlooked. They never become the true focus and driving force of the game. Never its priority.
Think if you are ruling an outpost in a open PvP game. It depend on you, you'll have to hold and defend it from enemy attacks. The NPCs in the outpost are your own, they go work and gather resources for you, pay maintenance costs. You are responsible for this layer of the game, called to gather people, organize the activities, defend your territories. This creates with the game the strongest bond you can imagine. This creates a social fabric because it's the context that creates the situation. You are together with other players facing a situation that involves everyone. And where everyone relies on the other. This is also why PvP is the best route to achieve these goals. Where the true, till now undiscovered, potential is. What it could become.
Eve-Online already did some on this, albeit on a different genre. The players work together, administrate their properties and territories, they patrol and defend, they organize together, they interact, they create stories, tensions. All within the context of the game. Adding to its depth. Even when you are hauling resources from one point of the galaxy to the other, you still have "fun" because that part acquires a meaning within a greater frame where everything is connected and has a consequence. Because you are together with other players in "truly communal patterns". Where Eve-Online "failed" is in making these activities the activities of the great majority of the players. Making them more easily accessible instead of something out of reach and demanding an high price of admission (because of the accessibility barriers).
The game should offer patterns to connect the players, but as part of the fabric of the game world, and not through artificial rewards to push them in a specific direction. The socialization and communal activities should be facilitated, but not imposed or justified through Out Of Character design purposes. This social fabric should be the focus of the game, not its drift toward the reward. Its center and not its perimeter.
The real point is that these games should move directly away from that "risk Vs reward" mechanic. Away from granting more experience points to groups instead of solo players. Away from Out Of Character (I mean: "external") design interventions to drag the players around. And instead moving the collaboration at the true core of the gameplay and objective of the game. To make the transition as natural ans justified as possible. Coherent.
Game design should always move coordinated with the players, not against them, not imposing trends, not fighting habits. If an habit exist it is justified and if it is a "bad habit" it's because there's something responsible that should be directly fixed. If the players fight against their own fun, something is wrong in the design. Not in their behaviour. If the players show anti-social behaviours and don't form bonds naturally (assuming that they would like to), it means that they bumped against an accessibility barrier or that they were steered elsewhere.
Submitted by Abalieno on February 7, 2006 - 03:22.
What if everything we believed till today was false?
Any good solo class attracts tons of players in any game.
There are a few interesting discussions on the forums and even on TerraNova questioning the role of other players in a mmorpg.
The theme is rather complex and wide and I don't want to try to analyze it now. But I believe there are some "emergent" traits in the discussion that I tried to bring up as well along these last weeks in EVERYTHING I wrote. From the navel-gazing theories during the Christmas (after Raph's posts) to the concrete proposals that I added as the natural consequence of those reasonings. I believe it's also something that every player can feel directly when playing a game.
I always considered one article Lum wrote (or the more recent version) as one basic principle and core value of this genre (and reused it many times) and here I'm not negating it, but I still consider these "doubts" as something that has some value. If understood correctly. In fact my worry about the discussion on TerraNova and on the other forums (where the discussion is continuously chunked and derailed, making it hard to delve) is that those "symtoms" aren't interpreted correctly. Because that's the whole point.
Personally I went through a transition and many of my ideas changed in the last year, in a concrete way. But at the same time the basic principles I had are still there, they are only seen in perspective.
This is why I don't feel surprised if TerraNova reveals that the majority of the players spend the majority of their time playing alone or that "The average guild member collaborates (in quests, etc.) with only 11% of his/her guildmates for more than 10 minutes over the same month", nor I believe that WoW is showing "exceptional" (meaning "unusual" here) trends. This is instead something I recognize and I believe is widespread, probably even beyond the conclusions on that site. In fact I believe that those conclusions are completely wrong.
Different games show different trends? Are you sure? Take a game like Eve-Online. It's the exact opposite of WoW and its social fabric and corporations/guilds structure is what makes it truly unique. We could safely postulate that this game would show completely different trends overall, especially about the behavious in the guilds. But are we absolutely sure, again? I'm not. I believe that, from the perspective of this discussion and the conclusions and traits I consider relevant, they would be identic. In fact I believe that both would mirror a graph I already used. Yes, the association between hardcore/casuals and collaborative/solo is deliberate.
The "emergent" level of these games mirrors exactly the model of the "iceberg". The part visible above the water is only a minimal part of the whole. There's a HUGE, yet hidden, mass that we systematically forget and remove of any relevancy. We make assumptions on a superficial level that surely makes sense and is valid (like Lum's article) but it isn't so absolute and univocal as we assume.
In "game design" this blindness would be a Total Disaster (actually this is false (*), but I don't want to make things too complicated). If we must strive to design "better" games, also in the commercial sense, we cannot just aim at the visible part of the iceberg. This is foul, inadmissible. It's "Brad McQuaid".
All these consideration, if we have some "intellectual honesty", seem to contradict the theory that the value of these games is in the "community". The community seems instead a backdrop at best. Just the fluff at the end of the journey to try to retain the subscriptions even when the game is clearly "over". That "endgame" that, incidentally, most players (me included) seem to criticize.
So how we put all these pieces together? Is there a connection? Yes, I believe there is, I also believe that all these "revelations" aren't contradictory with the basic principles they seem to negate (Lum again). That's the interpretation that I find lacking on TerraNova or on the forums where this discussion is partially tackled. I believe that all these pieces go together and I don't think the overall scheme is extremely complicated.
The answer is simple: we are at the beginning. They keywords are those that I keep reusing. Accessibility and permeable barriers. The new mass-market or new mmorpg players are starting a journey. Till today the accessibility barriers were immense and this type of audience was simply precluded. A mmorpg was "catass by definition". We didn't have "casual players" or, in this context, "audacious explorers", because the design didn't have any place for them. All these things are changing now and this genre is slowly learning from its mistakes. It is opening up in new directions, in particular thanks to WoW and all the work it did toward the accessibility.
So I don't find surprising that the large majority of the players are still "learning the ropes". Nor I'm surprised if even WoW still exhibits PLENTY of accessibility barriers despite all the work it did in that direction. Again, we are only at the beginning. We have only seen some timid attempts (and, still, they paid back hugely already).
I believe, coherently with all I wrote in the past, that the hidden part of the iceberg is what matters. But not in the sense that we have to consider it, yet trying to dissimulate this interest. I believe instead that we should work to make that side EMERGE. So not trying to simply "second" it. But understanding its needs and behaviours. Giving it legitimacy and revolutioning the design if the conclusions are asking that.
This is why in my practical ideas I recently focused on the "permeable barriers" (between the servers, the classes, the alignment and the play-styles) and why I used my tripartite design scheme as a "gateway", where the players are encouraged to discover all the parts that the game has to offer in a natural, progressive way (I also wrote about this more specifically here). Without impositions or mandatory requirements. Without the design strongarming a specialization. And even without the players PRETENDING from the game what they learnt to expect from every other mmorpg they played.
Again all these ideas are only a few possible solutions that I imagined and that I consider valuable. There are surely more and better ones. What is important is about acknowledging all these core points and arrive at the correct conclusions. Those conclusions that I criticize, since I seem to have a point of view that doesn't seem welcomed.
(*) False why: because, at a basic level, a designer doesn't need to be omniscient to create a good game.
Submitted by Abalieno on January 31, 2006 - 04:28.
So I was going to comment Tigole's "defence" on the forums and why I think it's just PR fluff. But Lum chimed in. And when it happens things go in another direction and change perspective.
The point is that this time I completely disagree because he goes just with the demagoguery to explain that "what people want" is stupid. Okay, we already knew that.
Demagogy is built through commonplaces. Here are some:
You mean MMO players resent any development time and effort put into a playstyle they don’t personally engage in? O RLY?
False. Noone argues with the development till the game is felt as satisfying. Noone complained that Blizzard was developing raid content till the players began to crush against that wall to discover that the game continued in that direction. With or without them.
Noone cares much if there are (more) options available in the game. In fact most people would be glad. If I'm at level 10 and Blizzard announces they are working on a dungeon for level 50s, I'm happy. Because eventually I'll get there. If Eve-Online devs decide to build superHUGE capital ships that I will never even remotely hope to fly, I'm happy. Because it creates the context of the world. It gives it scope.
People complain when they meet a signpost that BLATANTLY says: "Go that way". They try and they find a wall they cannot pass. And they start to see their friends with better luck that manage to "get promoted" and join the "fun stuff". Returning with sparkling loot and laughing at you while you kill your worms to grind the faction. Which is the only option you have left: Go in a corner and feel ashamed of your condition. Enjoy being oucast from that community that you slowly started to enjoy and integrate with through 60 levels. At that point some jump the fence to reach greener pastures, while some bite the dust and are left with the crumbs.
This is WoW's endgame and this is what the players complain about. It's not for the demagogic commonplace about "development time and effort put into a playstyle they don’t personally engage in". It's about those patterns becoming mandatory and inaccessible. The community moves onward while selecting who can go and who is left behind. And who could eventually join later and who is out for good.
Another commonplace:
You have a player base composed mostly of people for whom this is their first MMO, and definitely the first MMO they’ve reached the endgame in. They want more stuff. They want more stuff like they already played.
They absolutely do not want different stuff. They want stuff like they liked.
False again. The great majority of the players would appreciate some variation in the gameplay.
I'd gladly mix in my playtime some PvP, casual PvE and raid content. But this is EXACTLY what WoW is negating. Because Lum, as everyone else, you are missing the point. It's again not the availability of options. It's not about the variance.
It's instead THE LACK OF THEM.
WoW's endgame isn't a scenario where many doors suddenly open to offer you a whole slew of options to choose from. IT'S THE EXACT CONTRARY. These doors shut in your face. Those door that become mandatory become also more and more SELECTIVE.
The game SHRINKS. Till the point that it is so tight that you cannot breath. Till the point where it chokes the fun. Till the point that people start to complain.
WoW's raiding isn't criticized because it's another of the many options available. But because it is the only one and, in particular, because it's the one THE GAME REWARDS THE MOST.
If the games offer feedback through rewards. If the games are patterns of learning and the feedback is used as a guide. Think about it. Where the game is pointing the players to? Where?
This is why the two player types are now two FACTIONS, one at war with the other. It's just the consequence of a tension that the design of this game actively built up.
And that’s where some people get REALLY ANGRY. Because they have a lot invested into their characters, their friends and the connections between the two, and they REALLY. DO. NOT. LIKE. BEING. TOLD. NO.
And this is the final point. The players see their friends move on a level they cannot access and are cut out. This is the process of exclusion and this is the original nature of a mmorpg. A concept that goes beyond the "competitiveness". Because it's a broader system where the community builds the game and where the game world acquires depth and significance depending on other players.
Of course they are pissed off if they are lured in and if they can only stare when their friends move on and kiss them goodbye. They aren't needed anymore. They are out.
This is the process of a culture. This is what a culture builds. This is the "mass market" and its effect on the people. The need to belong and be there. The need to share something and don't feel different. The need to "succeed" in the same way they see their friends succeeding.
If you forbid this process, you build up a tension that sooner or later will explode. A tension that didn't explode before only because mmorpgs have been considered "catass" by definition till today. From level 1 to whatever.
Submitted by Abalieno on January 29, 2006 - 14:16.
Continuing on the same tone.
We always wonder about the magical recipe that would lead to "better games" and "humongous success". Everyone would like a slice of Blizzard's pie. The new kid on the block that stole all the market with just one game and as a first attempt. The MMO Jesus that multiplied the number of potential customers like the bread and fishes. Leaving all the other veteran companies to bite the dust and run salvage what's still salvageable.
So what's this magical recipe? What did Blizzard's genial devs to make everyone else feel done? Well, it's simple. They worked on the accessibility of the game to make it more polished and appealing and introduced a quest system that was partially able to hide the feeling of grind and pointless repetition by adding some convenient variance in the patterns. Which is exactly what our "rant communities" HAVE POINTED OUT FOR YEARS. Ignored.
Blizzard gave a decent answer to a problem. A better answer. Making a game "for everyone".
We don't need brilliant and experienced game designer like Raph because this genre is already stuck *at the most basic level*. It needs common sense, maybe, but there isn't anything complex or arcane to understand.
MMORPG design is really that simple.
And what will be the market of the future? The true answer to this quastion is worth billion dollars. It's like finding the Philosopher's stone. It would turn everything into gold. And the answer is just IN FRONT OF EVERYONE'S NOSES. Exactly like Blizzard's "brilliant" design was already so obvious if just some people at the decision-making level had a clue and woke up before.
The future of the genre is to make these world even more accessible and immersive. Working on the qualities that we already discovered and going to tap that potential that is still dormant. The future of the genre will be about offering *solid answers* to the problems that are now dodged or dismissed. It will be about games that bring the players together instead of apart and that will continue to appeal to casual players, without imposing them unacceptable strains and dependencies. Games that will let you contribute to the "world" without the need to schedule your life around it. Games that are accessible and don't separate the players in social classes of uberness.
Bringing together, and not apart. Removing the barriers, accessibility. It's always *the same shit*. We don't need geniuses or Civ4's "Great People" to advance this genre.
We just need to pay attention. Observe. React. There are already plenty of hints suggesting where the market is going and what are its true demands.
Part of the current success of Eve-Online (and, in particular, the "viral" part of it) is the direct consequence of their "one-shard" model. Which lets you "hear" about the game from your friends and join them right away (and as simple as a direct download for a full, updated client not shattered between a moltitude of expansion packs). Its viral success strongly depends on veteran MMO communities that slowly build up interest and curiosity. Letting the new players join the community without having to crash into barriers and discover that all your friends are spread between twelve+ servers and an arbitrary number of levels. Or that require a videocard so "uber" that would suck alone a whole month of real life work.
Things "come to life" in Eve, despite the shallow initial impression, because the game provides the right conditions for the players to organize and create something.
The pattern was really simple:
1- The devs work hard to make the game appealing on certain aspects (In Eve it's the sandbox mode, the freedom and scope of the players' interactions).
2- The players arrive and start to grow in number, bringing their friends in and constantly creating more curiosity and interest. The new players aren't segregated and dispersed into hundreds of servers, but share the same space. Creating "permeable barriers" that don't isolate them and encourage them to *connect* with the bigger, emergent community.
CONNECT. Get some "hints" from Xfire. Or its clones. That's where we are going.
The games of the future will be those where the players won't be fragmented and isolated between hundreds of servers, but those with permeable barriers. Where from a side you create "cozy worlds" where the community can build up still within a manageable scope, while from the other allowing the players to cross those barriers.
In the same way the players should be able to partially bypass their forced dependence on other players. Permeable barriers, again.
Leaving behind the restrictions and narrow design limitations of level-based treadmills. Removing that silliness that segregates the players till the point where there are huge gaps between the catasses and those who are left behind and are kicked out of the system. Excluded because they couldn't "keep up" with the power creep and time requirements.
Creating more immersive, consistent worlds where the player will be able to interact more directly and naturally with the game world. Without the interfaces growing and crowding the screen till the point that you can't see past them. Immediate, visceral, direct gameplay and not "try to find and hit the right button between a million others" while micromanaging everything at the most insane level.
Some of these problems were analyzed and explained by Raph brilliantly and in great detail. But we didn't need Raph to bring those problems up! Our community already pointed them out from a long time! It was already all so fucking obvious. GLARING.
You just need to open your eyes.
And no, we don't need fancy new genres or crazy Korean stuff. Because fantasy-themed games can be all that and SO MUCH MORE. Can't you see?
We need *answers*. Practical, concrete answers and not more, endless dissertations wasting time like I'm doing here. I cannot provide those kind of answers because I have no powers on that front. I can only offer ideas opinions for what they are worth. But there are those, out there, who can. And they have this responsibility to start to move things forward. Concretely.
P.S.
It's MMORPG design to be stupid and obvious. Execution is still hard. There are no shortcuts for that, I'm sorry.
|
Recent comments
4 days 17 hours ago
Posted by: Stranger
6 days 6 hours ago
Posted by: silveredie
1 week 1 day ago
Posted by: Innsmouth
1 week 1 day ago
Posted by: Hic
2 weeks 10 hours ago
Posted by: epicflyboy
2 weeks 5 days ago
Posted by: My Name is Frank
3 weeks 1 day ago
Posted by: whipit
3 weeks 1 day ago
Posted by: cantgivamouseshorse
3 weeks 6 days ago
Posted by: Innsmouth
3 weeks 6 days ago
Posted by: Hic