Tag Archives: Game Design

When questing doesn’t really work

by | 2 Comments

This is something I was planning to write from at least two weeks so that it could fit as a premise for some ideas I got and that are a sharp swerve from my previous positions.

It’s about the use of the “quests” in these games. What they represent, their appeal. And if their potential is fully used or if there’s still space for something else.

On F13 I wrote a short summary of the functional role of the quests in World of Warcraft. Which is a direct innovation on the very poor implementation and lack of direction and purpose of the previous games:

In a mmorpg the “kill10rats” model is about an “excuse” to disguise the treadmill. The strict purpose of this quest is that you gain experience and get loot. These quests are excuses so that the process seems more varied (kill10 this, then move and kill10 of that, instead of just plain grinding in one spot). Once you killed those 10 rats, you are exactly in the same situation of before. The quest is no more availiable and you pass on something else. But the quest itself, has no purpose or actual sense in the world. It was there as a pretence, not as a strong, motivating element. An “extra” in the game, not the subject of the game.

I want to move away from those “functional” considerations to see what these “quests” can be. DAoC is a game that has a completely different approach to them.

Here is an example.

Whoa! As you can see that’s a helluva lots of text. It’s crazy for those players that are used to the few lines of “context” (often humorous and lightweight) that come with a quest in WoW.

This is one of the newest quests in the game, added in the last patch with the purpose to give some Champion experience and fill some of the gap in that content. Their functional role is good, in fact they (very) partially addressed one problem I pointed. I also think that the writing is excellent, the same for the other 4/5 quests similar to that one. There’s really nothing to complain here, these quests are really well written and interesting.

But then I’m back to write, more or less, the same things I wrote about the graphic and content: a pretty surface, but, if you scratches below, there’s not much left.

The problem is the gameplay that is offered. While what happens “in the text” is rather good and appealing, what happens *for the player* isn’t really so breathtaking. I took this quest as the example because it actually takes advantage from the fact that “nothing happens” (see the last dialogue. when I did it I was really looking forward to a fight. It fooled me perfectly). But then we are still back at the essential. This is a fetch quests. A wonderfully written one, but still a fetch quest.

The gameplay here is:
– speak with “questgiver” (click, click, click through text till end) ->
– move to NPC1/checkpoint1 (click, click, click through text till end) ->
– move to NPC2/checkpoint2 (click, click, click through text till end) ->
– move to NPC3/checkpoint3 (click, click, click through text till end) ->
– return to questgiver (click, click, click through text till end) ->
– Got reward! Some coins and the Champion experience I needed.

I got the reward (reason to do all that) because I “endured” the process. 90% of the time I spent doing that quest was about reading, 10% was about running around (the directions were good, thankfully). All in all the quest was satisfactory and I liked the text. Still I was somewhat annoyed by having to read all that, and then read more, and then walk, and then read again. I had to repeat this for all the 4-5 quests and it was tiring. I’m also one of those players that just won’t do a quest without forcing myself to read everything and understand. I don’t want to leave anything out. And I think that, in exchange, I had to read something worthwhile.

Still it was a strain.

On Raph’s blog Amberyl (Lydia Leong) wrote a wonderful comment that also triggered my reasonings:

I’m not convinced that MMORPG players aren’t capable of reading, or don’t like reading. I don’t think they like reading the text that they’re presented in today’s MMORPG, in the context that it’s presented in.

You’re talking about a demographic that also devours 800-page Robert Jordan novels. Clearly they like reading *sometimes*.

That’s also what I’m convinced about. I have no problem reading and I like it. I do plenty of reading in front of the PC and I love reading in some old games (Ultima series, the two Ultima Underword, System Shock). But I have a problem with the “presentation” and the context. That’s exactly what doesn’t work and could be improved.

In the quest I brought as an example above the text seems to get in the way of the game, not part of it. Again, you are rewarded if you read it (well-written text) but it’s still felt as an intrusion. Something that doesn’t seem to belong there. An ‘extra’ text (once again) that in that case is getting a tad too much “inflated”.

Now the point is, Mythic seems to have some good writers, and then some wonderful artists. These are precious *resources* and they seem good. Isn’t there a better way to use them? Would it be possible to move the text there (without changing it) to a different context to make it more meaningful and with a more appropriate “presentation”? Is there a way to valorize that text?

I don’t mean changing the font and making it more readable. I mean transforming it in a *subject* (and value) of the game instead of just an ‘extra’ that most of the players would (and will) rather skip (the outcome is the same, your “duty” is to click till the end till you “ding” the reward. Nothing could go wrong).

The “solutions” to these problems will be the subject of another article. But I’ll anticipate that these ideas I have will be about recovering that functional purpose that made the text in those old games I quoted so relevant and… fun.

(continues here)

P.S.
A few notes to complete the observations about the “quests” but that don’t add to the points I wanted to address here.

There are some noteworthy differences between the fetch quests in DAoC and those in WoW:
1- The amount of text (with the amount of text in one DAoC quest you could probably make 10+ quests in WoW)
2- In WoW there aren’t many fetch quests. The great majority of the quests pivot around practical gameplay, like kill things, collect things, explore, reach a particular point, figure out something simple, etc… Often a mix of all these.
3- When there are “pure” fetch quests or fetch components, they are mostly to be serviceable (purposes). Like leading the players in a new zone where they’ll continue the journey, make them discover particular spots, point to them in a precise way. Summarizing: to direct the players.

Quoting Raph:

Many many MMO devs disagree with you. I have heard many MMO devs cite “story” as the principal reason and strength for MMOs, for example. I happen to disagree with that, but there’s little doubt that this rigid control is a major success factor for WoW.

These comparisons give a good idea about the weaknesses of DAoC’s questing system compared to WoW.

(/sad that Raph didn’t comment my remark…)

Summing up: accessibility and long-term viability

by | Leave a comment

Saving a part of discussion that started from here (original source)

—

Raph:
Actually, I touched on that here and here, but lord knows I’ve said it enough other times too. :)

The first link discusses again possible ways to optimize the production of content. That has nothing to do with what I tried to say. My point is that the more you stretch the treadmill the more the game risks to break. And it will. The problem is not one of quantity, it’s the one of accessibility and viability.

If new players join a barren world and have no ways to reach their friends or where the whole community currently is, the game will die over time. No matter how good are your “retention mechanics”. It’s destined to collapse sooner or later.

WoW will collapse later because it is more easily soloable, so accessible. But the model is still doomed.

The second link only passes by the issue without getting it (it’s mostly a problem of economy and dynamism that I somewhat discussed here).

Newbies are reduced to one or two areas per level range, and the entire process of levelling up is seen as just “the prelude to the real game.”

This is true but, again, what I’m saying is not that the newbie experience is blander compared to the resources and value put on the endgame content (in WoW the endgame content is actually worse than the early game). what I’m saying is that, overtime, the newbie experience degenerates till the point the game becomes completely inaccessible because there aren’t anymore players around to group with, enjoy the game and experience what requires more than one player available and well balanced groups with all the classes represented. Which is what you said in the first article (that I liked more): “they (levels) are used to keep people apart” And spread thin, I would add.

Till the point where the “latter” game is completely isolated and anymore accessible. Or you are ALREADY part of it, or you are out. If a mmorpg is a flow of water, this equals to cutting off the fount. You will still have the players gathering at the end like in a pool (I often use the image of a dam at the level cap) but the water will stagnate and it won’t last for long.

So you can switch “overlook” with “not pinpointed well enough”.

Actually, what you write in the second link is the opposite of what I’m saying. You point out the problem of twinking and increased knowledge that brings to trivialize some parts of the game. While I’m saying that with less players around and without a strong community supporting the early levels, the newbies will find the game *too hard* and inaccessible to be viable and fun.

This is a general trend. I always totally agree on your premises and those articles are wonderful. But then I disagree on the conclusions, and, most likely, on the possible solutions.

—

Lum:
Ah, but statistics without context will make liars of us all. Take the first graph you posted, a typical WoWCensus readout. By this metric alone, we’d decide OMG WOW MUST HAVE 99% OF THE CONTENT FOR LEVEL 60S!!! (which, not coincidentally, is a common forum refrain).

Yet one of the reasons WoW is currently selling 3 copies for every man woman and child on the Internet is the game’s breadth and depth of content. Although on older servers many players have progressed to the end of the level curve, the fact that there was no lack of content getting there is not insignificant. It delivered MILLIONS of people to the end of that curve. That it doesn’t then continue to provide huge swatches of content doesn’t mean the game is poorly designed, it means that however huge the development budget, it can only deliver so much content, and the development team chose to concentrate their efforts on the “missing curve” that you dismiss.

I really don’t know where you are trying to disagree here. I took those premises (like the “not enough endgame content”) to prove them wrong. Not to consolidate them.

Imho, WoW wouldn’t be a better game if it had another 10 instances at the current endgame. That’s not what I’m trying to prove. I’m just trying to say, as did Raph, that this model brings directly to an UNSUSTAINABLE siituation. And the game WILL collapse because of this.

1- The developers cannot keep up with the *increasing* demand for content.
2- The players need more content to remain in the game and have “things to do”.
3- The more content added at the endgame and the more the treadmill is stretched, the less the game will remain accessible for new players.
4- This can last till a point (stretching and more stretching). Then it breaks.

Lum:
You said that the problem is that there’s not enough content at the far end of the curve. There will *never* be enough content, because the time spent by players at the endgame dwarfs any development team’s ability to create challenges.

But that’s my point as well! I’m not going against that idea, I’m proving it.

Lum:
This is why there’s so much attention paid to procedurally generated content and player-generated endgames (political, combat, cooperative, whatever) because no matter how much content you create, you not only aren’t going to keep up, you also with every addition run the risk of invalidating large swatches of the rest of the game by throwing off the power curve somehow. (Treasure that results in players becoming exponentially more powerful, for example.)

And here’s another point (where I strongly disagree with Raph and Dave). The generated content and AIs are *chimeras*. They will never work. Going in that direction won’t bring to any result. The demand for (that type of) “content” can only be delivered in that way. You cannot magically (algoritmically) produce content. You won’t fool anyone if not yourself (see Mike Rozak’s splendid definition of content).

As I said from MY point of view (the whole thing I’m saying here) is that quote I took from Raph: “they (levels) are used to keep people apart”

A solution to the problems I pointed is about possible, different models that could bring the players TOGETHER instead of apart. Levels, today, are used to chunk the community (which can also be good as I pointed to Raph) but also to shatter it.

You already summarized my “view” on these games when you said I see them as “living worlds”. I’d add that the model I would like to see is the one of a circle, where the whole game is self contained. Opposed to the current model that is just a lineear, endlessly stretched string that is viable only if you start at the same time of everyone else and are able to “keep up” with them.

If you join late, you are out. If you lose too much terrain and cannot keep up, you are out. (this is what Raph overlooked from my point of view)

Then there’s the sandbox game. Here we move away from a single-player game because the focus is more on the actors as active subjects more than a linear, fixed story that is narrated or re-enacted. In the sandbox you can fit pretty much everything, even the whole game of the first type. But, in general, the sandbox has “toys” into it that you can use freely and “creatively”. The player here can have different roles and the model is particularly appropriate for the myth of “satisfying repetable content”.

The other way is what I have as an ideal: the living world. A living world is a sandbox, or a complex system. In a complex system all the elements have a precise function that isn’t “replaced” or “mudflated”. All these elements are tied together, forming a complexity and shaping up a “world” that is self-consistent and self-contained. Where you just don’t need “more space” to justify more content and where you don’t need to mudflate and replace anything because every element has a purpose and is justified.

This model ideally allows the system to never age. Both new and old players exist on the same level and play together, not far away. There’s no need to build barriers since the game itself takes advantage from the ties between the elements. The development can go on at the same time on all the levels without leaving out either side.

Can you see that I’m pointing to the same problems you pointed too?

The Sandbox

by | Leave a comment

Before I forget, I need to archive some comments, some from Raph’s page and some from Darniaq’s. The context is the same and we are all contributing to the same argument at the moment.

These definitions don’t pretent to be absolute and objective. They just define my personal perspective and my beliefs.

After the two wonderful articles that Raph wrote and that we are still discussing (broken link till I don’t copy/paste it), I believe that what is important to do is see what there is past those considerations. Focus on the conclusions and the possible answers to those problems. Or the discussion would become just redundant and not usable.

After having pointed the flaws of “level based mechanics” my motto is: “doing better, not doing without.”

To begin with, an assumption: sandbox = systemic

—
There are “content” games and there are “sandbox” games.

The first category is about natural single-player games that follow a linear direction. From a point to another. The game doesn’t end till you reach the other point, but the premise is that there is an end. You can stretch this model and make the gap between the two points bigger or smaller. You can even further extend it at will (think to games rising the level cap, or expansions to the classic RPGs) but the “end” is still there.

You are supposed to play this type of game till the developers have stuff to show you. Basically the playtime is proportionate to the development. In a game dependent on a monthly fee the dependence/addiction mechanic is preferred because it’s easier for the developers to find hooks and carrots, and make them desirable. It is also comfortable because there’s a definite direction and you have a precise idea of what you have to offer. It takes time but it is also predictable.

Then there’s the sandbox game. Here we move away from a single-player game because the focus is more on the actors as active subjects more than a linear, fixed story that is narrated or re-enacted. In the sandbox you can fit pretty much everything, even the whole game of the first type. But, in general, the sandbox has “toys” into it that you can use freely and “creatively”. The player here can have different roles and the model is particularly appropriate for the myth of “satisfying repetable content”.

This second model works like a complex system. The development time is still important but it’s not directly proportionate. The linearity is lost and the system is even supposed to move on its own once it is “closed”. Here the “end” is only represented by the boundaries of the sandbox (possibility space) but the longevity depends more on the ties between the elements within more than the actual number of elements.

The “sandbox” types of games are harder to make, in particular because the industry has less experience with them, while it has plenty to make the first type.

But it’s this second model that is simply more appropriate for an online game based on subscriptions and that is supposed to last in the longer term. It’s this second model to use the innate strengths of the genre and the uniqueness it has to offer.

—
From a simplified point of view:
– If you add one point to a linear path (the classic idea of content), you are increasing the ‘weight’ by one. It’s predictable and the system is so simple that you cannot really expect to optimize it.

– If you add one point within a system, instead, you increase considerably its complexity. This because all these elements are connected together and affect each other in a complex relationship (and often retaining a specific function, so never aging).

—
(These types of) Mmorpgs have life cycles. So noone actually cares if the newbies are turned off. It would require a long term planning that is just uncommon in this industry.

The point is that, after the initial sales, no other (linear) mmorpg has shown an increasing number of subscribers. Which is the other graph that Raph shown here.­ The strategy is to rise as much and possible, “milk” all you can and then, eventually, the profit will be used for some sort of “sequel”.

I ranted about this in my posts about the mudflation and “ecology”. The worlds get littered till they aren’t livable anymore, but noone really cares. We burn what we find. Use, throw away and replace.

It’s how the consumer society works and what gets replied in these games. We produce because we use and we use because we produce. There’s always “somewhere” else where you can go.

The other way is what I have as an ideal: the living world. A living world is a sandbox, or a complex system. In a complex system all the elements have a precise function that isn’t “replaced” or “mudflated”. All these elements are tied together, forming a complexity and shaping up a “world” that is self-consistent and self-contained. Where you just don’t need “more space” to justify more content and where you don’t need to mudflate and replace anything because every element has a purpose and is justified.

This model ideally allows the system to never age. Both new and old players exist on the same level and play together, not far away. There’s no need to build barriers since the game itself takes advantage from the ties between the elements. The development can go on at the same time on all the levels without leaving out either side.

And if you happen to enter it five years after the launch, you would be able to see it improved on every part and not just fragmented and left half-broken. It would inherit the innate qualities of life: grow and adapt.

One is built to last. The other is built to be consumed.

—

Darniaq:
Linear games are easier to sell to a larger crowd it seems.

The point is that the “sandbox” games are still rudimental and the industry doesn’t have a lot of experience making them. The outcome just cannot compare to a linear game that is the direct heritage of a single-player game with a long history behind.

Making a good sandbox game is just way harder than sticking with a simpler, consolidated model. It’s more risky, less predictable (so the industry rejects it).

But then we have to go back at the roots. Why WoW is successful? Because it is accessible. Because it’s the very BEST game for a new player approaching this genre (without a doubt).

And what’s the first flaw of a sandbox? It’s lack of direction. The fact that you don’t know what you are supposed to do next and you feel overwhelmed and lost.

This CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED.

In my personal experience I had the exact same problems in UO, SWG and Eve-Online. It’s definitely not a coincidence. All these three games are very hard to figure out and enjoy. I’m not a total newbie but I had LOTS of problems in these games and I can see clearly why something like WoW is more popular. I know because it affects me as well.

In all those three games, for example, I found really, really hard to find people to group with, while it’s almost impossible to not get invited in a group in WoW at some point. I wrote about this in various occasions but the first, supposed quality of these games was instead my very first issue: the socialization.

I always found *extremely hard* to talk to strangers in UO, SWG or Eve if not within strictly formal relationship (like to repair my things in UO).

So the point is that the sandbox games aren’t simply “not successful”. The fact is that they aren’t ready. Just that. They are still too partial, incomplete, rough and inconsistent.

Still today the sandbox games are those where I had the LESS fun. So why I love them anyway? Because what I see is their potential beyond those flaws that have been impassable barriers for me. And if have that silly dream of becoming a developer it’s because I dream about what these games will be when those barriers will be removed.

That’s the myth I’m chasing.

(give a look to these ideas for some context)

—

Harold:
Kinda pie in the sky but it would be nice if the zones could evolve or regress based on usage.

Dynamism works better in PvP. So those ideas are more interesting if applied in a PvP environment.

Instead PvE needs good stories and good stories need staticity or it would be just impossible to narrate good ones when you don’t have the controls on what is going on.

Dynamism means contingency and the contingency is the opposite of identity. Identity is essential to narrate stories. So the needs of PvP and PvE are antithetic.

—
Simply put: in a “systemic” game world all elements are tied together, the dots are connected. Each element has a “weight” in the system that affects everyone else.

In a systemic model:
– The players are brought together. The model is represented as a circumference, where the players/dots create groups or “cells” and move within while bouncing one against the other (creating alliances, conflicts, politics etc..). The space belongs to them (known) and is “managed”.

In a linear model:
– The players are spread apart. The model is represented as a vector, where the players are pointed toward an obligatory direction and have a set position that “qualifies” them toward the other players. The space is external, alien (unknown) and only conquered and progressively consumed.

By delving some more it is possible to transform those two into cultural models but I won’t do that here. Which one is more appropriate for an online game? You choose.

And yes, mmorpgs work as living bodies.

This is how MMORPGs die

by | 4 Comments

I tried to correct Raph’s graph because it doesn’t show what actually matters, from my point of view.

Raph’s graph isn’t supposed to figure out why some players leave the game. It should just compare the volume of content available with the volume of players. And what is relevant in THIS context is the volume of players at the same time. Also because it’s what matter to make the game accessible, bring the players together and enjoy the game. Something that is NOT POSSIBLE if all the players are spread thin around a desert.

So yeah, I’m not interested to find out why the players are leaving. Or maybe I am, but I think that another perspective will tell me a lot more about this specific argument.

Following this line of thought, Scott Hartsman wrote a “defense” of level-based games, as it is plausible considering that he is EQ2 producer and he must believe in what he does:

All of that “database deflated” content is called “shared experiences,” and they’re critical to a game’s success in the era in which they’re relevant. In the long run it loses value. That’s a given.

However, it’s absolutely critical to have it there in the short term, in order to get a game to the point where it can actually lose that value. That’s a problem of success. We should be so lucky to have that content beginning to lose its original value. We’ve both seen what happens when games (intentionally or no) appear to assume that success is a foregone conclusion and skip straight to “Aha! It’s going to lose value anyway. We’ll think ahead and not do as much of it in the first place, saving long term pain!” I’ve got all the proof I need to even more firmly believe that it doesn’t work that way if the goal is to satisfy those who enjoy character growth.

Here I believe that the only mistake Raph did in that article is about the title. I don’t think he is trying to prove that “levels suck” and that the successful games we have now are crap that shoud be thrown away and replaced. I just believe that he is trying to explore and delve in the mechanics that make levels fun. See their origin, discover their flaws and finding out if this research can open the path to something different that could solve or improve some of these aspects.

It isn’t about going “against”. It’s about creating a debate to use as a source. A source that is useful to improve and explore new possibilities more than rinse and repeat models that are now consolidated and “safe”, but that are still problematic. Are there possibilities to do better? Are there better solutions available?

The point isn’t about devaluing the current games. The point is perceiving possible developments and use the experience as a ladder to reach something else. It’s about taking risk. In this industry it’s *fundamental* that the risk is excused and motivated so that it is plausible and justified. This is why it’s overdue to analyze the flaws and propose ideas that MUST start from those problems and offer valid answers.

My idea, about what Scott wrote, is that the current level mechanics are killing these games, in the longer term. So an apparent, superficial “lesser issue” is, instead, CRITICAL for the future of an online world.

—
Here are my graphic leet skillz:

Now, the first graph represents the situation on a server a few days after the launch. The blue line traces the *activity* on the server in a set moment and not the number of characters created that never come back. In the first weeks all the players are concentrated in the first levels and then slowly decrease. During this phase there’s overcrowding and if you were in WoW at launch or at the launch of a brand new server you know how this is absolutely true. Everyone is running around the newbie zones and only a few players that never log out are able to reach an higher level compared to most of the other players.

Do you remember all the queues that lasted for multiple hours during the first days and all the players raging against Blizzard? That wasn’t simply the server load, it was because all the players were packed in the newbie zones and the early levels in general. The red line here shows the volume of the content available targeted at those levels. At the beginning of the graph there’s more of it to accomodate the number of players, but it’s still not enough. There’s more of it compared to the mid-levels because each race has its own newbie zone and content.

(the graph still doesn’t factor the “time” needed by each level, or the first levels still wouldn’t compare with the amount of content in the mid-levels, since each level takes more time and so requires more content available)

The second graph, instead, shows the situation of the server after a few months. Only a few new players are active at the same time and 99% of the game is emptier and lonely even if the game remains hugely successful. There’s basically more than enough content for the whole level curve. At the exclusion of the last few levels where all the players start to amass. If you notice, the red line at the end of the graph rises more than the red line of the first graph. This because Blizzard developed and added more “endgame” content. But as you can see, even after this effort, the content is still nowhere enough for the number of players that are hoarding at that end.

And this is why right now we have all the complaints about not enough raid content, or not enough viable progress for casual players after level 60.

Now what even Raph seems to overlook and that from my point of view is the BIGGEST problem, is that the situation shown in the second graph gets worse over time. Till the point it becomes a plague for the whole game. A plague that will just shatter the game in the longer term, creating a number of unsolvable side-effects that will slowly kill the game. Till the point where it will need a replacement because broken beyond repair. As I said the inequality between the content available at the mid-levels and the few players populating those zones is still somewhat bearable and a non-issue in WoW because the game is still hugely successful and, between alts and new players, even the early levels are kept somewhat playable and fun.

But what would happen if the game wasn’t a so huge success, and what will happen in the longer term? That the early game will be totally DESERTED. Only a few alts will dot the graph here and there, having an hard time finding someone alive to group with and, maybe, do those instances that were so popular the months before. The consequence of this trend is a recursive aggravation where less and less players enjoy the loliness of the early levels, deserting them even more till they won’t become just a lonely “desert”, but a swamp that you won’t be able to cross anymore.

And here we hit something bigger that was again always overlooked. Why the possibility to solo is considered so fundamental today? There are surely various reasons, but the main one is that the possibility to solo is a somewhat effective antidote to a deserted game. So, even if there aren’t enough players or if you cannot play during the peak time, the game remains playable. You won’t crash against impassable barriers because the content is still accessible. It’s not because playing solo is more fun. It’s because, after the gap between the players grew so huge, the solo play becomes the only viable solutions when playing with your friends is not anymore possible because the game put a WALL between you and them.

The huge gap that was created between the veteran players and the new ones will transform into an impassable barrier that will progressively isolate the game and the community (the elitism will to the rest). Slowly killing it in the longer term.

This is how MMORPGs die.

It’s true that extended treadmills and character progression are effective mechanics to retain the subscriptions. But it’s also true while going in that direction you progressively isolate the game from new players. It’s as conservative approach that aims to preserve the current situation as long as possible but that is still cruising toward an unavoidable collapse.

An healthy online world that slowly *grows* instead of slowly collapsing, is one where new and old players are brought together and not cut apart. A type of game where the content is experienced together and brings life to a world, and not burnt and thrown away as junk. The difference between a place where you live and one that you colonize and leech till there’s nothing left.

Perfect mirrors of the American capitalism and colonialism.

A broader, rigorous definition of “content”

by | Leave a comment

This is the very best one, ripped right from Raph’s blog.

It isn’t really usable for the day to day discussions since it doesn’t consider “content” in the same way of the players. But it opens interesting considerations and clarifies many design “nodes”.

—
Mike Rozak

A comment about having players create content for one another… Content that is not seen as good by players is not content. (However, players that create the content are certainly having fun, and might well consider the act of creation to be content.)

Likewise, adding a generic dungeon with armies of generic monsters is not content.

One (of the many) requirements for new content is that it must be backed up by new systems. Take for example, the gravity gun and physical modelling. It is a new system that has breathed life back into FPSs, and allows all sorts of new content (rooms with things that can fall) that weren’t possible before.

Basically, content is a variation on systems. (Which is what raph said.)

You can only produce so much worthwhile content using a given system without having the player say, “It’s just another fedex quest, except I’m delivering jelly babies instead of flour” or “This monster is really just and orc with a different 3D model.”

The first gravity gun is really fun. The second game finds a few twists for the gun that the first didn’t explore, and it too is fun. All subsequent games using gravity guns are rehashing old territory.

.. Which is also why player-created content is also. Morrowind and NWN provide toolkits that allow users to create their own content. Unfortunately for the skilled players that might be able to produce good content, the skilled Morrowind/NWN content creators squeezed most of the variations (content) out of the engines before the players got a chance at the tools.

Likewise, new IO devices enable new/varied systems, which enable new/varied content. Text + keyboard + floppy = Zork. CD Rom + 256-bit graphics = Myst. 3D accelerator + 32 kbps modem = Everquest.

—
My notes:

In my tripartite model describing the process of “fun” (which was then validated in Raph’s book) I focused on the concept of “learning” as the essential one.

In the case of the frustration, the “lesson” or pattern to learn is too hard. The lesson is like a “wall” we have to overcome, but we may lack the tools (the ladder), or the wall is too high for our possibilities, so we crash against it. This is a barrier that denies us the possibility to learn. So the frustration. This is a failure for both the player and the designer. Many of the design discussions about the “death penalty” have their roots on this concept.

In the last case, instead, the lesson is too weak, or already mastered. Too trivial. It becomes predictable and we don’t have fun because we already “grokked” this system. This is the case where the definition of “content” plugs in. My idea is that both the content and the fun have personal components. This is a concept I’ve already vaguely introduced (near the end). We don’t learn just everything. We learn only what we are interested about, what we feel the need to learn. This is why both content and fun are subjective (and strictly tied together). In order to have fun, I need to be interested in what the game is going to teach me. In that precise type of lesson. There must be an acceptance already before. If this interest is not present, we cannot learn and we cannot have fun.

This ties back with the first line: “Content that is not seen as good by players is not content”.

Predictable content can also be not content and the players can cut off entire chunks of a game. For example, while for some players the questing in WoW is content, for other players it’s not. It’s a void. They are bored already after reaching level 20 or so and they do not need to “do every quest in the game” to know that the game has already told everything it had to tell them. There’s a point where you start to anticipate what is going on and what the game will deliver next. An experienced player or a developer get bored way faster at these games because they have gotten better at “pattern matching”.

WoW can have thousands of quests, but the unique patterns it uses are just an handful (kill, collect, fetch, plus all the mechanics about the encounters, rewards and so on). After a while you identify and group them (consciously or not). So they stop to matter as separate entities and lessons. We see past the courtain and discover the mechanical engine behind the apparent magic.

Accessibility in Eve-Online, some vague ideas

by | 1 Comment

Just saving a short discussion on Dave’s blog about Eve-Online’s accessibility and the gap between the tutorial and what is only “supposed” to come later and that too many players hear about and aspire but never manage to actually see (myself included, heh..).

—
Abalieno:
I believe that a lot could be done in Eve to make it more accessible and to bring the players more near to where the fun is (I know this because it’s already a big accessibility barrier for me).

I’m one of those that need something linear to follow before having the courage and knowledge to move on my own and Eve is the opposite of linearity (which is where it’s the quality). But my belief is that, while you cannot have a freeform game within a linear one, you can still have linear, leading paths (and more than one) within freeform games (not too differently from what Raph writes here). Eve could do a whole lot from this perspective.

Another example would be about organizing the categories of the ships, which is another part of the game that I still have no clue about. You can give a look at the ship page like I did but there isn’t a clear definition of the roles, scale and how they compare with each other. It’s hard to understand which ship you need and can afford next and what are the main roles or purposes of each type so that you can make your choice.

There’s enough space here for the documentation to improve (outside the game) and the linear paths I described above to help the players understand all this directly in the game. That’s what I would develop in the game. Instead of a tutorial that explains the UI and the basic types of gameplay, I would add linear careers, semi-scripted, that you can follow and switch (or quit) at will. So that you can learn progressively the game at your pace or just go on your own.

That’s what I think should do a good freeform game. Take the players by the hand if they don’t feel ready to go on their own, while giving them total freedom to forget about the linear path and search the luck in their own way.

—
Lydia Leong:
EVE is initially accessible, from the standpoint that the tutorial is magnificent (probably the single best MMO tutorial I’ve played through, and I’ve played through a lot), and help is more readily available than in practically any other game. The raw tediousness of mining (as well as travel through higher-security space) ensures that everyone has plenty of time to chat. Getting staked as a newbie is critical, but seems to be relatively commonplace.

Where it falls down in accessibility is probably around ten hours into gameplay, when you’re really running out of more directed things to do and find the world to be a fairly bewildering place. You have the awareness that fascinating things are going on elsewhere, but you have no idea how to become a part of them. The gap between the newbie game and the corporation game is just too vast.

—
Abalieno:
Yes, that’s what I think too and what I meant with my suggestion to add some linear careers. The purpose is to have something to do past the tutorial and that makes you explore with more depth the other parts of the game if you feel still too intimidated to go explore on your own and set your own goals. Also giving a longer term motivation to excuse the progress.

It could be done as an expansion to the mission system, but by making it more cohesive and articulated in the longer term. Bringing also some fun in the “empire space”.

It would also offer the possibility to set many different progressive ranks that could work like levels to bring the players together, for example by creating some hubs around the world where more players at the same “rank” would meet to take some group-tailored missions (a problem in EvE I have is that I NEVER grouped with anyone. Mostly because the game does very little to bring people together in a natural, seamless way).

“Removing the barriers”

by | 2 Comments

Someday I’ll have to force Lum admit he agrees with me. From his blog:

The arcana that we get so worked up about? It’s marginalia. We really do play these games to dance. Speaking as someone whose career now involves fixing the marginalia, actually following this line of logic to its conclusion is somewhat humbling. What I do isn’t really that important, unless it somehow works to dissolve those social bonds. The first rule of MMO live teams should be that of medicine: First, do no harm.

And if you look at people who are furious at MMO Screwup X, I’d wager a bet that it comes down to, when reduced to its components, “the game is keeping me from being with my friends”. In most current combat-oriented games, this comes down to a reduction in effectiveness. I’m less effective, so I’m less likely to be asked along in raids, or I’m an imposition on my friends when they do, or I’m less likely to make new ones, or I contribute less to the group/tribe/whatever.

Ignore this lesson at your peril.

Which sounds like a remix of what he wrote a while ago.

Here below I repeat again that WoW’s success is in the accessibility and that these games should work toward “removing the barriers“. Lum’s “the game is keeping me from being with my friends” is, essentially, a barrier.

On his recently released book (I’ll have to say something more about it as I have more time) in the description of WoW he insists a lot on the fact that it’s the polish to make it successful. The new players are at ease with it, it’s the best mmorpg to start with right now.

I often insisted to define that as “accessibility”. The reason is again that it’s a generic term that is able to embrace all the other aspects that are still fundamental. But the accessibility is THE distinctive trait that joins those aspects. And, essentially, the accessibility is about the absence of barriers. Or the possibility to make them permeable.

If you read Raph’s book you’ll also see that a barrier is another element that prevents the fun. The accessibility to learn. If the game is too hard and you don’t have enough elements to figure out a solution, you crash against a wall and, often, you lack the tools to overcome it.

Now, *the very first goal* of my dream mmorpg is about removing those barriers. Removing the levels and replacing them with a skill-based sytem. Giving the players the possibility to travel between the shards, switch factions, classes and roles, and keep the (PvE)content accessible while still retaining progress and complexity to keep things interesting and involving. From my point of view, and it seems I’m not alone, this is a fundamental need that cannot be anymore overlooked. We cannot pretend anymore to develop mmorpgs without considering this point and provide an effective solution. My ideal game exists to give an answer to that problem. It starts from that point as the basic premise.

I’m writing this because I was commenting a post on Nerfbat about the PvP which made me re-read a long discussion about skill systems. It seems to not fit in this theme, but read this:

What are the negatives of uncapped skills? The traits I was able to isolate are:
– In PvE: gaps between the players, favor elitism and closed communities, difficulties to group and catch up with friends
– In PvP: unbalance

“Uncapped skills” stands for endless progress. See how we are discussing again about barriers?

Changing completely context, I was reading on FoH’s boards how, again, a PvE game just doesn’t fit with a PvP one. The justification was again that the item progression is fun when it comes to PvE, but then breaks in the PvP due to the unbalance. So the contrasting need to maintain the advancement into the game, but still keeping it reasonable to not screw up the PvP.

Imho, this is totally false. That unbalance that is obvious on the PvP is still there even in the PvE. If you look carefully you’ll see how there is absolutely no difference if not because the PvP is directly competitive, so making the inequality more visible. But not more relevant. I just posted a letter from WoW’s community managers explaining how Blizzard is committed to provide a satisfying character progression even for the casual players. Now I’m curious to see how. That huge umbalance in PvP due to the exponential growth in power provided by PvE raids is NOWHERE MITIGATED in PvE. I’m *really* curious to see how the hell they’ll balance a 5-man instance when they have no control over the variance in power of the characters.

Under these conditions it will be hard to balance the PvP as it is balancing the PvE. It was simple to balance an instance at the lower levels. The levels themselves were already a narrow estimation of the variance in the power. But at level 60 the variance goes through the roof. As I dinged 60 my 2-handed axe had around 48 dps. My new epic sword has 70.6 and there are better ones that reach 90.

Again: “gaps between the players, favor elitism and closed communities, difficulties to group and catch up with friends”.

So, am I the only one who has some concrete ideas on how to address these fundamental issues and trying to give an answer to these problems that we are dragging along from a very long time?

What the hell are you doing out there?

Well, beside Raph.

Another idea for a better Realm Points distribution

by | 1 Comment

There’s a thread on the Vault with a good summarization of the concerns about the latest changes in the patch that will go live next week (possibly).

My primary character right now is an Aug/Mend Healer on Gareth. Much of my “job” is healing, mezzing and stunning. After thinking about this change, I don’t like the idea of granting RPs for healing, mezzing and stunning. That’s my job and I do it to help the group prevail in battle. If we win as a group, we all share RPs equally. If we lose, we don’t. The tanks are getting extra points for melee damage. The casters are getting extra points for nuking. And so on. We all have different roles in battle that contribute to a win or a loss, and I like the fact that we are all rewarded equally for it. Now, my group mates might be wondering whether my choices were to maximize my personal RPs, or to maximize the group’s chance of winning.

I don’t like getting something extra just for doing my job, and I don’t want to be treated as “special” by the game just because I happen to play a support class.

This all makes sense. The concerns are valid.

My opinion about this didn’t really change from what I raved more than a year ago.

The idea I was suggesting was completely focused on the group and aimed to encourage and reward teamwork. Basically (the details are specified in the link), the more Realm Points your group gains without dying, the more a “multiplier” on the Realm Points they earn builds up and the more the “bounty value” (aka the Realm Points that the group is worth) rises accordingly.

This enocurages the group to work together and to survive instead of “zerg rushing”, /release and rushing again. While also rewarding a good performance and those groups that manage to kill the bigger guys (with this system the good groups would be “hunted” since they are worth more).

I still don’t see why this idea wasn’t accepted and I believe it could be also integrated to solve the concerns raised by the post I quoted.

My solution is simple: continue to reward for resurrections, heals, mezz and stuns. But share these additional points between the whole group.

Is all this unreasonable? And if so, why? (if only Mythic accepted to have a discussion… sadly I think I’ll have to live with my doubts.)

But then I also have to say that the current changes don’t look bad and that I have nothing to complain if support classes get more RPs. I just wonder if a better solution is possible.

Instancing isn’t tech

by | Leave a comment

Just a quick note that I found and that I forgot to add to my (non)contribution (now edited) to the discussion about the use of instancing.

Lum’s defined it this way:

Again – instancing is just tech. Like 3D engines.

While I’d specify (because I think it’s an important point that triggers other thoughts) that instancing can be tech, but it can also exist without it.

In fact I believe that, in particular from the design perspective, instancing is a symbolic structure and nothing else. That can then have different types of implementation that could also require specific technology (like different servers and communicating databases). But what is essential is that you can completely abstract the concept from the technical implementation.

And that’s what actually matters. The tech is a way to realize at best an idea and not vice-versa. The more the technical level is concealed for the final user, the better is the game.