A new blog discussing mmorpg design is for me an occasion for a challenge. In particular when it is so praised by the elite mentors. I have to find my own point of view and I have to find something where I disagree so that I can still feeling like what I say could still matter something. You know, affirming identity :) In particular when we get someone that writes so much better and clearly and that delves a lot more in what is being discussed. She is just more competent, precise, analytic and going straight to the point of what actually matters without struggling with the words or raving with the thoughts through an undefined path noone can actually discern (and she even uses WordPress better than everyone else).

So I was going to read through her website to find some sort of weak point that I could criticize or at least affirm a different point of view. But then she completely won me with this recent post:

Currently games – and this is closely related to the static nature of present mmogs – have little to no added mechanisms for large-scale, long-term combat, and by “mechanisms�? I mean functions and interface aspects that are designed specifically for that type of combat. There are siege engines, which do imply some extended duration, there are added chat features for large groups, and there are often special abilities for large-scale group versus group play. However, when I say I would take this way further, what I mean is adding several more tiers to the combat systems at the “large-scale�? end of the spectrum.

This means war!

Specifically, and for this to be meaningful the game at its heart would have to support this far beyond minor bonuses to one or another winning side – I think it would be interesting to see what could be added in terms of strategic long-term planning in wars that are designed to last, literally, weeks. The eternally-ongoing warfare of current games is fine, but I would far prefer to see that relegated to a minor aspect in a dynamic game, because for “real�? war to have any effect it should be dramatic and at least to some extent destructive, which means that any constantly-available skirmish combat would have to have minimal effects.

You see, that game is the game of my dreams. But then the truth is that she already won me before, when I read her personal intentions. She writes something I definitely share and I felt like reading myself. Just better written and explained. Well, beside the point she is not interested about working in the industry, because I’d love to do it (or at least it’s what I like to think). So I’d break that point and say that I’d also really like to see her working on something concrete and move all those discussions to the specifics of a precise game. About the same way I’d like to see Dave Rickey working for an high-profile company and game (or not having left Mythic). When I start to appreciate how someone thinks and tackles the problems, I’d like to see them contributing concretely and push forward those ideas and principles that we discussed for so long. Just maybe to have the illusion of not wasting all these words on redundant discussions that don’t really go anywhere.

The other point that I noticed and that it’s different from the way I write is that, in general, I don’t deduce what I think. I assume already a point. I know it is correct. But then, if I want to communicate it, I need to explain it and I need to find justifications that make sense and are logic. So firstly I have the idea, then I have to research the reasons about why it is correct so that I may suceed to convince others about its validity. I need to bring on proofs, research the problem and analyze it. AFTER I already arrived at a point and often trying to reverse-engineering the path my mind followed on its own. I cannot track my mind. I struggle a lot doing it, it’s definitely something I do poorly and the result is that I may have good ideas but I express them poorly and often have to quote someone else so that I can say: “That’s what I mean”. This, instead, doesn’t happen to her. Her points come out logically and naturally, she makes sense and provides lot of insights about what she’s writing.

Now I wonder, can a blogger just please everyone? It must be a first.

P.S.
There would be a lot to discuss about the positional combat system she suggested. To begin with I see two big problems in it that are also shared by all those games that already offer some sort of positional styles. The first is that this type of combat cannot really work till we don’t have a decent physics in the game (so that the movement in the space can be meaningful and make sense). An obvious example is WoW where the most common PvP strategy is about running *through* the opponent to make him lose the LOS and disorient him, which is an absolutely lame tactics. The other problem is about the large fights, assuming that the warfare idea comes along the positional combat in the same game. It’s not really viable have a complex positional (and visually reactive) combat when it’s even hard to discern the human shapes in the mass of polygons. It may work for duels but it wouldn’t easily fit group battles or something even larger.

Her ideas resemble on some aspects to the combat system I planned a while ago. But today I would completely reconsider it and drag it somewhere else. In particular in the light of what I write here.

My idea now would be about incorporating arcade (but realistic) elements with the “roleplay” layer. To begin with, get rid of the quickbars. Something that really went out of control in WoW and that Babylona also underlined. The combat system I have in mind should be completely manageable through a joypad. That’s the first goal. Then offer to each character/type/class specific attacks. With different animations and effects depending on the weapon and even the targets (through reactional feedback, think for example about sinking your sword in a fat monster and have to fight to pull it back out).

The model I have on my mind is “God of War”, just translated to a mmorpg, with the statistics still there but not prevalent as we know them. Each attack shouldn’t be just the same swing with a more or less unique animation and functional effects like a DOT, a root, a powerful attack, a taunt and so on. Instead we would directly regulate how the weapon can be used from a realistic point of view and offer a direct type of feedback that doesn’t need to be simulated and faked through numbers and statistics. In “God of War” I was surprised by the insane amount of different moves the character has available and how different was their use in the specific situations.

The resulting action may be considered more “arcade” but it definitely *isn’t* less tactical. On the contrary. The feedback is direct, you need to learn from the situation, figure out the encounter and apply a different strategy till you finally manage to “win” the part. And this without the need to parse complex statistics, quickbars and other “roleplay” elements. The game doesn’t even need an UI. It is directly usable and deducible from what you see without the need of external knowledge.

Give each weapon 4-5 types of attacks at maximum, give them unique animations and concrete, physical effects on the target. Then chain the attacks in a combo system that can take advantage of reactive styles and specific events. Noone should need to learn complex interfaces but just understand the combat system through the direct use. Not anymore parsing the numbers to study the best pattern to follow in the hotkey party, leave that type of planning to the managment of the character *outside* the fight and just make the actual fight depend on action elements that can be directly figured out.

This type of combat not only would attract DROVES of players thanks for its absolute accessibility and fun (want mass market? this is a way). Not only it would reproduce a type of realistic combat where what happens makes sense in the flow of the action and truly resembles to a swordfight instead of the faked action resulting from the combat in WoW and other games. But it would also work flawlessly in a duel as in a larger battle between armies.

(and my english is particularly broken today)

P.P.S.
If “God of War” isn’t a good example to imagine what I mean, think to one of the latest Zelda. Btw, today I go back to give a look at Babylona post and find out that “Age of Conan” will follow a similar idea (combat possible through a gamepad). Well, at least I still could claim the idea within a Virtual World and bigger battles. Which “Age of Conan” definitely won’t deliver.

Sanke Pliskeen + Helter Skelter = New Orleans 2005

America loves its myths. I wonder if someone will pull a GTA-type of game out of it.

Meanwhile I enjoy some news:

HAVANA, Cuba (Reuters) — Cuba’s parliament, led by President Fidel Castro, set aside politics momentarily on Thursday and stood for one minute in silent homage to the victims of Hurricane Katrina — before quickly returning to normal business and condemning the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

“The whole world should feel that this tragedy is its own,” National Assembly speaker Ricardo Alarcon said.

Heavy rainfall lashed western Cuba and downed power lines when Katrina swung across Florida and into the Gulf of Mexico, but the island escaped the devastation seen in the United States.

“The news pained and saddened Cubans. In their name, we wish to express our profound solidarity with the people of the United States, state and local authorities and the victims of this catastrophe,” Alarcon added.

Castro, dressed in his trademark green military fatigues, stood with his head down for the minute of silence.

Alarcon said devastation in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama was the most costly natural disaster in the history of the United States, Communist Cuba’s ideological enemy for four decades.

Poor, mainly black Americans were the hardest hit by Katrina in the number of deaths and homes lost, he said.

The 600-member rubber-stamp parliament then got back to business and unanimously passed a resolution attacking President Bush for massacring Iraqis and harboring extremist Cuban exiles.

HAVANA, Cuba (CNN) — Cuban President Fidel Castro has offered to send help to the United States in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

At a nightly roundtable program on state-run television Friday, the Cuban leader said his nation was ready to send 1,100 doctors and 26 tons of medicine and equipment.

Just because I noticed while writing the other post.

Dave Rickey countered my argument to put the “polish” within a bigger set called “accessibility” with:

Polish vs. acessibility: You say “Tah-may-toe”, I say “vine grown fruit frequently mistaken for a vegetable”. Polish/Accessibility is the enemy of innovation and novelty, new features and gameplay are not accessible and haven’t yet been polished.

This discussion is about a detail I consider extremely important.

Polish and accessibility aren’t interchangeable. The difference is that the meaning of “polish” is: “make something better”. The focus is “better”. It’s unspecified. From the point of view of our considerations it’s just not useful (if not to state the obvious, like that these games need more reiterations and more work).

The accessibility, instead, can be specified. While you cannot really say when something is polished or not, you can say when a system or a feature is accessible and usable or not (see the beginning of this post for example) and even the extent of it. Which makes this definition simply more useful. We can define the goal and isolate what still need works.

Since I also noted the low hardware requirements as “accessibility” one could argue that this directly hinders the innovation, at least from the technological point of view. This is why Brad McQuaid chose to push the envelope and you can see the wonderful results here. The same applies to the horrid EQ2.

Despite WoW is supposed to have an older technology, it still looks better and delivers more on “what matters”. The technology isn’t an end in itself. It is just a “mean” to deliver something else. The technology is in the middle, not at the ends. We use it for.

These same arguments can be used also when we discuss the need (or the lack of it) of advanced AI in these games. A pet peeve of Dave Rickey that I often criticized and that I’ll get back tomorrow after I parse some intelligent comments on Babylona’s blog (and Dave is already there, hehe).

Note to myself: Remember to also counter the need for “abstraction” that Babylona expressed here. What we need is EXACTLY the opposite. We need identity.

An extension to a post:

—

Kvlt:
It’s been my experience that the history of the industry is money hats in spite of countless awe inspiringly stupid decisions.

If a decision is stupid it’s not awe inspiring. Or, at least, it was badly executed.

If there’s hype about something that goes wrong it’s just because the hype was coming from a superficial public.

Right now Vanguard is hyped, but this doesn’t mean that it will be great. In fact I’m between those who believe it’s not.

Vanguard could have some awe inspiring ideas. But they are ideas that I’m ready to criticize. If one day Vanguard fails because its ideas are bad I won’t accept someone saying that the game was awe inspiring but, still, failed. It was just superficial.

It’s all about the difference between following the hype and be ‘yet another goon’, or try to dig a bit more and figure out NOT JUST what worked and what didn’t.

But figure out WHY.

The success of a mmorpg depends on reasons and not just on a lucky dice roll.

Let’s take WoW’s success. We should reverse engineering the design of the game, the quests, the loot system, the distribution of the zones, the classes, the interface, the controls, the PvP, the talents and so on.

The more you dig and the more you discover that there *are* reason why WoW is so popular beside the brand behind it. You’ll see where there are the strengths of the game, why they work, why they appeal so many players and why the game can now be considered mass market. You’ll also see that many of those “brag points” are points that our communities point out and discuss from many years. In fact WoW is successful *over* other games because it treasured their mistakes and proposed better solutions. While the other companies just sat on their asses doing nothing and with an arrogant attitude toward those trying to search a dialogue.

In fact I believe that our communities existed with that goal. Trying to “force game companies to engage the player base in a real dialog” (GBob). And not just create catch phrases and commonplaces.

WoW is successful beacuse its quest system is far superior to the grind we have before, despite it then become a way to hide a grind itself. It’s not perfect but it was a step forward. It is successful because it is accessible. I often underlined as those pointing out its success on the “polish” (Lum first, and after), are instead pointing to its accessibility, because I consider the polish a subset of accessibility (see my comment on Dave Rickey’s blog). The low hardware requirements play again a strong role in its success and are often understimated or not considered at all. Haemish is one of the few who underlined this aspect in various occasions. It matters and it’s still part of the accessibility.

Then, at some point, you’ll see how all these considerations aren’t anything new. And they were all already there.

WoW made the parents play the game with their kids, made a game that appeals so many different players (see Psyae’s comment) and now it can be considered a cultural phenomenon that broke the barriers of the geekdom (or made it truly mainstream).

There ARE reasons. The successful games of tomorrow are those who will explore new directions and offer intelligent solutions to the many problems that WoW and other games are presenting. Because WoW is FAR from being perfect and because most of the potential in these games is still there waiting to get tapped.

See Mark Jacobs pimping his new whore (in the brand new virginal, angst-free community):

Folks,

As promised, here’s my August update on the state of Mythic’s Warhammer MMORPG.

1) We have received approval from GW on the initial game design for the game. What this means for Mythic is two-fold. First, we have created an initial design that the GW guys actually like and are excited at the thought of seeing online. Comments such as “The only thing I don’t like about it is that we have to wait two years to play it!