It seems these days that crafting as a main element of a game is falling to the wayside. Crafting is entering a niche market, and appearing only as a paltry, token system in most MMORPG's. The WoW model seems to be the most common one, where crafting provides occasional gear, but usually anything that can be made is less useful than things that can be looted fairly easily.
The real question is why. Obviously there is a some market for crafting, as many vocal MMOers clamor for crafting systems in every forum on the internet. These crafters want an in-depth and expansive system that will keep them entertained and model complex economic systems within the game. So why isn't this market being met?
The easy answer is that it takes a lot of resources to invent a powerful crafting system. Star Wars Galaxies had a massive crafting system where each item was tagged with a unique number and was unique. Obviously developing and maintaining the database for such a system would be difficult, but more difficult would be balancing these items. At one point, composite armor was sold that had a ridiculous defense rating, making pvp against people in that armor a real joke. The defenses were so good that players began using weapons that were basically trophy trinkets that did very little damage and no player had certification for (using a weapon without certification severely reduced it's damage potential) because they did a type of damage that wasn't mitigated by the high defense composite armor. These weapons (which literally did about 20 damage all told) did more damage than any other gun could (regardless of user skill or perfectness of the crafting of the gun).
Balancing, creating, and maintaining a crafting system becomes more difficult with the increasing complexity of the system. Resources are limited in MMORPG production, so this is pretty much the dump stat of any MMORPG. 90% of the fanbase won't care if the crafting system is mediocre, and that remaining 10% is still homeless and looking for a place to call their own. they will most likely buy the game, and quit later, so why bother creating a system to attract them?
Banner
Monday, May 11, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
WoW, Achievements
It seems like every MMORPG and most games have some sort of unlockable achievements. It surprised me a little that World of Warcraft would impliment a system like this. It seems that all the things players have done for four years to get to the end-game now has a graphic associated with it and earns you points. These achievement points are fairly worthless, and serve as a reminder of which nerd has the most time on their hands.
Not all of WoW's achievements are pointless. Some are fun, such as the PVP battleground ones, requiring you to beat every battleground X number of times, or the ones that require you to collect a series of rare pets or gain a reputation with each faction. These are all things that someone may not do just to get to max level and begin raiding, and therefore are worth extra notice.
It is not, however, worth noting that a character managed to reach lvl 10...or lvl 20, 30, 40, etc. If they are lvl 80 I can pretty much assume that they've played through all the levels to get there (unless there's some magic auto-leveller machine that I don't know about, even then you'd probably still get the achievements).
My rant about this is primarily about both the arbitrary-ness of these achievements and also the fact that they have no purpose except as e-peen competitions. An achievement should mean something, and you should be awarded one for breathing (or reaching lvl 10, I mean, that's about a 2 hour commitment at best, and that's if you spend time dancing naked on mailboxes and go get lunch without logging out). Make the achievements something slightly difficult. The exploration ones are a good example, as are the pet collections. These are things that might actually take a player a little while to complete, which isn't the whole point of achievements to give players something to do until you push out the next patch/expansion pack?
The second purpose that achievements should have is to reward players. Remember the good old days when you could earn ranks by grinding out a pointless amount of hours in the battlegrounds? Or when you could earn a title by becoming exhaulted with the different battleground factions? Rewards don't have to be items, but they very well could be. It isn't hard to make something that looks awesome but has little or no combat effectiveness. An idea off the top of my head: Custom Weapon skin. It's a soulbound item, trinket, spell, whatever that can change the appearance of one of your weapons. Basically you can make your weapon look like any other weapon you want. It has no combat value, beyond the base weapon, but makes you look unique.
Achievements shouldn't just be circuses for the masses to keep them in the game until you get all their money. Achievements need to serve some purpose.
Up next, Star Wars Galaxies, New Game Enhancements has something that probably should have been in the original game: Collections. It's like an Achievement system's loot-whore twin.
Not all of WoW's achievements are pointless. Some are fun, such as the PVP battleground ones, requiring you to beat every battleground X number of times, or the ones that require you to collect a series of rare pets or gain a reputation with each faction. These are all things that someone may not do just to get to max level and begin raiding, and therefore are worth extra notice.
It is not, however, worth noting that a character managed to reach lvl 10...or lvl 20, 30, 40, etc. If they are lvl 80 I can pretty much assume that they've played through all the levels to get there (unless there's some magic auto-leveller machine that I don't know about, even then you'd probably still get the achievements).
My rant about this is primarily about both the arbitrary-ness of these achievements and also the fact that they have no purpose except as e-peen competitions. An achievement should mean something, and you should be awarded one for breathing (or reaching lvl 10, I mean, that's about a 2 hour commitment at best, and that's if you spend time dancing naked on mailboxes and go get lunch without logging out). Make the achievements something slightly difficult. The exploration ones are a good example, as are the pet collections. These are things that might actually take a player a little while to complete, which isn't the whole point of achievements to give players something to do until you push out the next patch/expansion pack?
The second purpose that achievements should have is to reward players. Remember the good old days when you could earn ranks by grinding out a pointless amount of hours in the battlegrounds? Or when you could earn a title by becoming exhaulted with the different battleground factions? Rewards don't have to be items, but they very well could be. It isn't hard to make something that looks awesome but has little or no combat effectiveness. An idea off the top of my head: Custom Weapon skin. It's a soulbound item, trinket, spell, whatever that can change the appearance of one of your weapons. Basically you can make your weapon look like any other weapon you want. It has no combat value, beyond the base weapon, but makes you look unique.
Achievements shouldn't just be circuses for the masses to keep them in the game until you get all their money. Achievements need to serve some purpose.
Up next, Star Wars Galaxies, New Game Enhancements has something that probably should have been in the original game: Collections. It's like an Achievement system's loot-whore twin.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Ten Commandments of Empire Total War
- Fight Concentrated: In the game of chess, one of the most important factors is local force. The more pieces you have that can affect the immediate area, the more control you have over an area, and the more likely you are to gain an advantage in that area. So what does that have to do with ETW? Well, the same concept can be applied to the battlefield. A smaller force, attacking in a concentrated manner, can overwhelm a larger, more dispersed force. Striking with local superiority is good for morale and allows you to swiftly defeat and break enemy units, which will help win the overall battle (or at least turn a loss into a costly victory for the opponent).
- Plan for the Worst: It is easy to have visions of grandeur, where your armies march over every opponent in the world and you can invade city after city without loosing any units. However, even great generals have bad days, and the best laid plans rarely survive contact with the enemy. Because of this, it is usually best to prepare for the worst, and make sure you have contingencies. Ensure that you aren’t attacking with one large army. Station more than a skeleton force in your cities. If you spend the money to build forts, station troops in them. Just because you are winning a war, doesn’t mean the enemy can’t turn back your forces or mount sneak attacks on your home front. Be prepared to respond to this.
- Use Combined Arms: In other TW games, a popular tactic is to mass cavalry. It often seems easier to compose your army of primarily one type of unit to simplify production and command. However, this is a very bad idea. Yes, it is easier and simpler, and that is why it is bad. If you have a lot of infantry, then cavalry charges and artillery are dangerous. If you rely on a lot of artillery, then cavalry can outflank and overtake your guns. Cavalry are also vulnerable to artillery and formed-up infantry. In short, by using a combined force of different units, you can both create tactics to defend against any force, and create local forces to overwhelm enemy units of a specific type.
- Utilize the Terrain to your Advantage: Terrain is vitally important in ETW. Terrain impedes movements, grants bonuses and penalties, and in general cannot be ignored without detrimental effects to your forces. Canons on hills have longer effective ranges. Being at a higher elevation gives you advantages, however, it also limits your mobility. Cliffs are effective dead-ends, but good for firing positions that are unapproachable from the front. Typically, any terrain position has pros and cons, you need to maximize the pros and minimize the cons of your position.
- Armies Win Battles, Economies Win Wars: Your mighty armies and armadas might win many battles, but an army marches on its stomach (in this case, its coin-purse). In order to maintain your troops and improve your technology, you need money. In ETW this means not taxing your provinces to death, and maximizing their growth. A nation with a mighty economy can raise a mighty army and buy the allegiance of enemy nations.
- Seek targets of
- Shatter the Enemy: Thanks to new mechanics in ETW, unit flags will start to flash once the unit is wavering. This can leave you disengaging from units who are not fully broken. Additionally, units now have a new status: Shattered. It is exactly as it sounds, a unit whose morale is so thoroughly destroyed it is very unlikely to recover. In combat it seems that broken units have a chance of recovering and returning to battle, while shattered units only very rarely (or never) recover from the shattered status. Because of this, it is best to, if it is possible, chase after broken units for a short while, and continue to lay into them until they shatter. Once shattered, they can be left alone, as they are effectively dead.
- Cheat on your Taxes: Not literally, of course. Territories with bad economies should be given a tax holiday to ensure they grow (most undeveloped economies don’t provide a large amount of revenue anyway. Additionally, newly captured territories can be made tax free until the revolt dies down (usually 4-5 turns, depending on size). This frees up some of your units to continue the fight elsewhere and prevents city watch from being called up (which can be more expensive than the taxes you would be loosing by declaring a holiday). Careful manipulation of these factors can ensure economies build up quickly
- Mobility Leads to Victory: An immobile force is effectively a large, easy to hit target. It is also less able to react to changes in the battlefield. A mobile force, however, can be fluid, harder to hit, and able to act to changes to the environments.
- Fight Your Own Battles: True to every TW game, the auto-calculated battles almost always lead to massive bloodshed on both parties. Because of this, it is almost always better to fight every battle yourself. Not only can you decide what enemy forces to do damage to, your tactics might turn defeat into victory. Also, you can determine when to retreat, what to risk, and maybe exploit an enemy mistake.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Tutorials the way they should be!
Having finally gotten around to playing Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3, I've found a unique gameplay element that I am in love with. The tutorial system for this game is both engaging and virtually flawless. Let me explain:
Most games, if they have a tutorial system, use a very basic one. The tutorial is, at best, a scenario mission on easy mode with pop up windows that give you guidance into how to play the game and hint at advanced gameplay elements. At worst, it holds your hand and requires you to go through basic gameplay step by step (and since most RTS games have a similar "right click" system, going through controls isn't usually neccesary for someone who has played a RTS before). In the former case, tutorials seem to be the first mission in the campaign and are required to play the rest of hte campaign (i.e. like C&C Generals). In the latter it is an annoying aspect that doesn't actually help the player get into the game. Either way, these tutorials are rarely important to the story, and often aren't that helpful to playing the game.
Red Alert 3 takes tutorials to the next level. The tutorials are guided by three NPC tanks, one for each of the factions in the game. They declare in the first tutorial that they "have declared a temporary truce, to train you, commander, so that none of us need to face death needlessly." The three tanks have distinct personalities; the limey Allied tank is snarky and british, the Japanese tank has an arrogant and superior air, and the soviet tank breaks the fourth wall regularly, making comments and asking questions about things like "Where do the engineers go when they take over a building?". The three personalities are well developed, and their interactions are hilarious. For example, the soviet tank gets shot by the other two whenever he breaks the fourth wall, which is hilarious in a slap-stick kind of way.
Having played C&C Generals, most of the interface and gameplay is familiar to me, but these tutorials actually introduce advanced concepts. The second tutorial allows you to play as all three factions with virtually limitless cash, allowing you to build bases and units and experiment with them. The only downside is that there are no enemies in this mission, so you can't test combat ability of your units, but that is just about the only complaint I have about these tutorials.
The background elements are what make these tutorials special. For example, in the third tutorial, the NPC tanks get a lift from helicopters to the second island to continue instructing you. Also, little things make these tutorials glorious. When describing how to use the mostly dual-use units, the scenario requires you to disable an enemy tank. The unit you are to use is normally a formidable anti-air unit. As this is described to you, a half dozen air units scream accross the screen and are promptly blown up by the unit. These little elements really make these tutorials.
In my opinion, tutorials tend to be thrown in at the last minute. C&C Red Alert 3's tutorials show a clear effort. If the C&C team spent this much time making the tutorials, the rest of the game has me giddy with anticipation (well, not giddy, but intrigued). I hope that any future C&C games continue with this tutorial system, and hopefully it will be copied by other games.
-VG
Most games, if they have a tutorial system, use a very basic one. The tutorial is, at best, a scenario mission on easy mode with pop up windows that give you guidance into how to play the game and hint at advanced gameplay elements. At worst, it holds your hand and requires you to go through basic gameplay step by step (and since most RTS games have a similar "right click" system, going through controls isn't usually neccesary for someone who has played a RTS before). In the former case, tutorials seem to be the first mission in the campaign and are required to play the rest of hte campaign (i.e. like C&C Generals). In the latter it is an annoying aspect that doesn't actually help the player get into the game. Either way, these tutorials are rarely important to the story, and often aren't that helpful to playing the game.
Red Alert 3 takes tutorials to the next level. The tutorials are guided by three NPC tanks, one for each of the factions in the game. They declare in the first tutorial that they "have declared a temporary truce, to train you, commander, so that none of us need to face death needlessly." The three tanks have distinct personalities; the limey Allied tank is snarky and british, the Japanese tank has an arrogant and superior air, and the soviet tank breaks the fourth wall regularly, making comments and asking questions about things like "Where do the engineers go when they take over a building?". The three personalities are well developed, and their interactions are hilarious. For example, the soviet tank gets shot by the other two whenever he breaks the fourth wall, which is hilarious in a slap-stick kind of way.
Having played C&C Generals, most of the interface and gameplay is familiar to me, but these tutorials actually introduce advanced concepts. The second tutorial allows you to play as all three factions with virtually limitless cash, allowing you to build bases and units and experiment with them. The only downside is that there are no enemies in this mission, so you can't test combat ability of your units, but that is just about the only complaint I have about these tutorials.
The background elements are what make these tutorials special. For example, in the third tutorial, the NPC tanks get a lift from helicopters to the second island to continue instructing you. Also, little things make these tutorials glorious. When describing how to use the mostly dual-use units, the scenario requires you to disable an enemy tank. The unit you are to use is normally a formidable anti-air unit. As this is described to you, a half dozen air units scream accross the screen and are promptly blown up by the unit. These little elements really make these tutorials.
In my opinion, tutorials tend to be thrown in at the last minute. C&C Red Alert 3's tutorials show a clear effort. If the C&C team spent this much time making the tutorials, the rest of the game has me giddy with anticipation (well, not giddy, but intrigued). I hope that any future C&C games continue with this tutorial system, and hopefully it will be copied by other games.
-VG
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Expansive Crafting & Guild Upgrade: World of Warcraft
When I used to play WOW, I had a few ideas that I never really fleshed out, but that I mused over in dozens of ventrillo conversations while not raiding (or rather while my friends weren't raiding, as a college student, I rarely had much time for it). One of these ideas integrates the concepts of instanced play, guild warfare, crafting, and concepts from the Hyjal instance and Warcraft 3. I also admit it blatantly steals elements from City of Heroes/Villains, but what doesn't WOW steal from?
Let's say you have a guild. At the moment, it's purely a social experiment with some limited item sharing via guild bank. Mostly it's just a pool of like minded individuals who can raid at a similar time, but honestly little else. It's a social group that delves into playing with specific game elements when it is convenient for the group. That is, in and of itself, totally unfulfilling. Guilds should be a presence in any game, and should have meaning, prestige, and honor.
What I propose is that each guild have a base of operations. Guild members are taxed or donate resources to build buildings which in turn provide resources or bonuses for the members. For instance, players pay to build a town hall and train and recruit peasants to work there. The town hall generates gold or increases the amount of gold players earn from mobs or some other tangible benefit (raw gold generation is probably best for this). The players then can build other structures, such as barracks which create NPC mobs to defend the guild base, or temporary npc allies for quests and missions (the latter would be hard to balance). Perhaps even have alchemy/blacksmith/tailor shops that sell rarer goods than the NPC towns or can perform research to generate patterns that are rarer than what is sold by any other NPC vendor. These bases should be a signficiant time and resource investment and should provide some tangible benefit that is worth the investment.
Now, these benefits shouldn't be without cost. Maintanance fees, quests to make things operational or keep things operational and other tasks should be part of this system. Nothing should be built once and maintained permanantly just because it was built. In this way, inactive guilds will have their bases degrade to a more simple level (obviously the most advanced levels should degrade much faster than the simpler ones, and a town hall should be able to support itself in a limited fashion).
Additionally, guilds who have bases are open for guild warfare. There should be a somewhat involved system for "keying" a guild to an enemy base (bases should be instanced) and these bases should have a limited number of attacking and defending players (40 vs 40 could easily work, but it should scale with the size of the base. AV would be a good template in some aspects for this). Once the guild gains access to the enemy instance, they can raid it for a short period of time (say 24 hours) before they have to redeclare war and rekey themselves. Any damage done to the base has to be repaired by the guild whose base was attacked and any buildings destroyed have to be rebuilt. There should be some cost or involved questing required for guilds to declare war, and steps should be taken to avoid abuse of this system.
Many aspects of this idea could be expanded to further involve players. Making buildings crafted out of craftable parts would be interesting. Requiring 400 iron nails, 20 enchanted bricks, 50 tanned heavy leather, 10 rifles, etc to make a barracks would stimulate crafting and the economy in those areas. Guilds would have a resource drain and resource needs beyond just raiding (which is intensive for potions and other buffs but not in much else, besides grinding instances for gear). Buildings should also take real-time to build so that you can't put up a top tier base in a couple hours, it should take weeks of real time to get a base completely built up (and weeks of raiding to completely destroy the base if you are declaring war, however, it should be simpler to reduce it's efficacy and force the enemy to defend it by say killing off all the peons or killing off specific NPC's).
The system would require a careful hand to ensure that it wasn't exploited and to fix potential holes, however, it could be a very fun and involved system that would prevent the need to push out yet another expansion pack.
-VG
Let's say you have a guild. At the moment, it's purely a social experiment with some limited item sharing via guild bank. Mostly it's just a pool of like minded individuals who can raid at a similar time, but honestly little else. It's a social group that delves into playing with specific game elements when it is convenient for the group. That is, in and of itself, totally unfulfilling. Guilds should be a presence in any game, and should have meaning, prestige, and honor.
What I propose is that each guild have a base of operations. Guild members are taxed or donate resources to build buildings which in turn provide resources or bonuses for the members. For instance, players pay to build a town hall and train and recruit peasants to work there. The town hall generates gold or increases the amount of gold players earn from mobs or some other tangible benefit (raw gold generation is probably best for this). The players then can build other structures, such as barracks which create NPC mobs to defend the guild base, or temporary npc allies for quests and missions (the latter would be hard to balance). Perhaps even have alchemy/blacksmith/tailor shops that sell rarer goods than the NPC towns or can perform research to generate patterns that are rarer than what is sold by any other NPC vendor. These bases should be a signficiant time and resource investment and should provide some tangible benefit that is worth the investment.
Now, these benefits shouldn't be without cost. Maintanance fees, quests to make things operational or keep things operational and other tasks should be part of this system. Nothing should be built once and maintained permanantly just because it was built. In this way, inactive guilds will have their bases degrade to a more simple level (obviously the most advanced levels should degrade much faster than the simpler ones, and a town hall should be able to support itself in a limited fashion).
Additionally, guilds who have bases are open for guild warfare. There should be a somewhat involved system for "keying" a guild to an enemy base (bases should be instanced) and these bases should have a limited number of attacking and defending players (40 vs 40 could easily work, but it should scale with the size of the base. AV would be a good template in some aspects for this). Once the guild gains access to the enemy instance, they can raid it for a short period of time (say 24 hours) before they have to redeclare war and rekey themselves. Any damage done to the base has to be repaired by the guild whose base was attacked and any buildings destroyed have to be rebuilt. There should be some cost or involved questing required for guilds to declare war, and steps should be taken to avoid abuse of this system.
Many aspects of this idea could be expanded to further involve players. Making buildings crafted out of craftable parts would be interesting. Requiring 400 iron nails, 20 enchanted bricks, 50 tanned heavy leather, 10 rifles, etc to make a barracks would stimulate crafting and the economy in those areas. Guilds would have a resource drain and resource needs beyond just raiding (which is intensive for potions and other buffs but not in much else, besides grinding instances for gear). Buildings should also take real-time to build so that you can't put up a top tier base in a couple hours, it should take weeks of real time to get a base completely built up (and weeks of raiding to completely destroy the base if you are declaring war, however, it should be simpler to reduce it's efficacy and force the enemy to defend it by say killing off all the peons or killing off specific NPC's).
The system would require a careful hand to ensure that it wasn't exploited and to fix potential holes, however, it could be a very fun and involved system that would prevent the need to push out yet another expansion pack.
-VG
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Unified Theory of MMORPG's
I have been thinking a lot lately about MMORPGs, and have personally played some of the stranger ones. Wurm Online, for instance, has your avatar do virtually everything in a semi-real environment where things take semi-real amounts of time. For example, you must dig down to rocks, prospect for ore, mine the ore, start a fire, melt the ore down, attempt to forge an item, fail or succeed, then do it all over again. To build a simple house you have to fell countless logs, make nails, etc etc etc all while keeping your person fed, watered, and healthy. Seems a bit excessive, but wouldn't be bad if the servers weren't so horribly laggy and it wasn't a java-based client.
Additionally, there are games like Entropia Universe, which convert cash into game money and vice-versa; EVE Online, which facilitates the buying of in-game time and characters with in-game money; World of Warcraft, which continues to provide new and interesting forms of gameplay, such as aerial bombardments and vehicle combat, and then drives it into the ground with repetition; Star Wars Galaxies and it's complex crafting systems, SWTOR with it's proposed companion system, WAR with it's guild-capturable keep and RVR innovations...the list is nearly endless.
As I said last time, games are becoming more and more specialized, and I'm not sure if I necessarily like it, however, I am wondering how far the trend will continue in terms of MMORPGs. These games, by definition, should appeal to a large audience, and their success usually depends on that very fact. Wurm online, for example, has a very small player base because at best it's tedious, and at worst, it's very tedious. WoW, on the other hand, has broken subscription records and danced on their mangled corpses because it's core game still appeals to a variety of players. It has diverse gameplay with no required path, a player is only rarely forced to experience certain content (the Death Knight intro sequence comes to mind, but that was very fun to play).
The rule of a successful MMORPG seems to be diversity to a point. Too much diversity and you have a broken system that is impossible to balance without ripping apart portions of the game(See Star Wars Galaxies Pre-CU and CU for more information), too little content and you are a specialized game that has a small audience and little ability to proceed (like Wurm online, and several other niche games). The appropriate balance must be met between certain aspects that appeal to the community, and ultimately one must take precedent over the others, even if they are semi-integrated.
These aspects are, in my opinion: Crafting, PVP, and PVE. Now these have a variety of subsets, but those are the broad categories. A quality game incorporates all three, and seeks some form of balance to them. WOW's priorities fall in this order: PVE, PVP, with crafting existing in mostly a token form (although, some professions are very important with the latest expansion, namely the new inscription class which provides benefits that cannot be looted). A game like SWG pre-CU roughly balanced PVP and Crafting as primary goals, with PVE hanging on for dear life as it was mainly used for xp and loot for crafting and pvp.
The appropriate balance is key for a successful game. WoW's lackluster crafting system has certainly not done much to restrict it's subscription numbers, and they are slowly improving it and making it a more important part of the whole. A game that brought all three into a healthy balance would appeal to virtually all gamers, however, would also most likely seem like three separate games. Integration is as important as balance.
-VG
Additionally, there are games like Entropia Universe, which convert cash into game money and vice-versa; EVE Online, which facilitates the buying of in-game time and characters with in-game money; World of Warcraft, which continues to provide new and interesting forms of gameplay, such as aerial bombardments and vehicle combat, and then drives it into the ground with repetition; Star Wars Galaxies and it's complex crafting systems, SWTOR with it's proposed companion system, WAR with it's guild-capturable keep and RVR innovations...the list is nearly endless.
As I said last time, games are becoming more and more specialized, and I'm not sure if I necessarily like it, however, I am wondering how far the trend will continue in terms of MMORPGs. These games, by definition, should appeal to a large audience, and their success usually depends on that very fact. Wurm online, for example, has a very small player base because at best it's tedious, and at worst, it's very tedious. WoW, on the other hand, has broken subscription records and danced on their mangled corpses because it's core game still appeals to a variety of players. It has diverse gameplay with no required path, a player is only rarely forced to experience certain content (the Death Knight intro sequence comes to mind, but that was very fun to play).
The rule of a successful MMORPG seems to be diversity to a point. Too much diversity and you have a broken system that is impossible to balance without ripping apart portions of the game(See Star Wars Galaxies Pre-CU and CU for more information), too little content and you are a specialized game that has a small audience and little ability to proceed (like Wurm online, and several other niche games). The appropriate balance must be met between certain aspects that appeal to the community, and ultimately one must take precedent over the others, even if they are semi-integrated.
These aspects are, in my opinion: Crafting, PVP, and PVE. Now these have a variety of subsets, but those are the broad categories. A quality game incorporates all three, and seeks some form of balance to them. WOW's priorities fall in this order: PVE, PVP, with crafting existing in mostly a token form (although, some professions are very important with the latest expansion, namely the new inscription class which provides benefits that cannot be looted). A game like SWG pre-CU roughly balanced PVP and Crafting as primary goals, with PVE hanging on for dear life as it was mainly used for xp and loot for crafting and pvp.
The appropriate balance is key for a successful game. WoW's lackluster crafting system has certainly not done much to restrict it's subscription numbers, and they are slowly improving it and making it a more important part of the whole. A game that brought all three into a healthy balance would appeal to virtually all gamers, however, would also most likely seem like three separate games. Integration is as important as balance.
-VG
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Big things in the works
There are big things in the works, one of the reasons I haven't posted in a while, and once a few final elements are figured out, they will be here in full force.
I wanted to talk briefly, however, about something that has bothered me. It seems to me that more and more games are offering "innovations" that aren't neccesarily good things. For example, Wii fit has the insanely funny avatar glitch, where a large person's avatar will balloon from a stick figure to a ball (which is perfect for self esteem). Additionally, in a more gamey sense, SPORE has it's horribly broken 5-games-in-1 gameplay. Seems like every game that comes out has it's own schtick.
Don't get me wrong, old games had innovations too when they came out. Warcraft 3 had an integrated hero system that was awesome and revolutionary in it's time (and to further their credit, WOW's talent trees have been copied by everyone and their brother for MMORPG's). But these innovations were actual innovations. Players saw these features and didn't buy the game for them, but rather enjoyed the game more because of their existence.
SPORE could have been a very different game if the focus was on the gameplay (like all the other SIM/Civ games) and not the stages of gameplay. I remember Sim Tower, it would certainly tell you when you reached a new level and got new stuff, but it didn't have to effect your gameplay at all. It was a bonus, not a reason to play.
The issue is not innovation but the gameplay around the innovation. Wow us, impress us, enslave us to your technological and creative might, but do so while we're playing a really enjoyable game. Bring us in with something completely different, then broadside us with WOW factor. Gamers love surprises like that, something that will keep us coming back for years. I don't still play Star Wars Rebellion because it's a star wars game, I play it because of the insane amount of complexity the systems within it have. Now, complex systems aren't something I like playing with, and wouldn't buy "Sim Complex System" but I would buy a tactical star wars game, and if it utilized an innovative complex system that I enjoyed using, then I would be grateful for that innovation.
Hopefully the kings are worked out for the big hidden secret projects. we'll soon see.
-VG
I wanted to talk briefly, however, about something that has bothered me. It seems to me that more and more games are offering "innovations" that aren't neccesarily good things. For example, Wii fit has the insanely funny avatar glitch, where a large person's avatar will balloon from a stick figure to a ball (which is perfect for self esteem). Additionally, in a more gamey sense, SPORE has it's horribly broken 5-games-in-1 gameplay. Seems like every game that comes out has it's own schtick.
Don't get me wrong, old games had innovations too when they came out. Warcraft 3 had an integrated hero system that was awesome and revolutionary in it's time (and to further their credit, WOW's talent trees have been copied by everyone and their brother for MMORPG's). But these innovations were actual innovations. Players saw these features and didn't buy the game for them, but rather enjoyed the game more because of their existence.
SPORE could have been a very different game if the focus was on the gameplay (like all the other SIM/Civ games) and not the stages of gameplay. I remember Sim Tower, it would certainly tell you when you reached a new level and got new stuff, but it didn't have to effect your gameplay at all. It was a bonus, not a reason to play.
The issue is not innovation but the gameplay around the innovation. Wow us, impress us, enslave us to your technological and creative might, but do so while we're playing a really enjoyable game. Bring us in with something completely different, then broadside us with WOW factor. Gamers love surprises like that, something that will keep us coming back for years. I don't still play Star Wars Rebellion because it's a star wars game, I play it because of the insane amount of complexity the systems within it have. Now, complex systems aren't something I like playing with, and wouldn't buy "Sim Complex System" but I would buy a tactical star wars game, and if it utilized an innovative complex system that I enjoyed using, then I would be grateful for that innovation.
Hopefully the kings are worked out for the big hidden secret projects. we'll soon see.
-VG
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
