Congrats to aruw3n on winning the prize.
Sorry I don't have one to give out to everyone because I would love to!
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Sunday, March 11, 2012
The problem with modern MMO PvP
Every ounce of my MMO playing body wants to return to the “golden era” (1998 to 2000) where no one was safe, impact was real, and some of the greatest MMO PvP in history took place in Ultima Online. However, my experience with today’s MMO PvP systems tells me there is no going back. The problem with modern MMO PvP isn’t one of design, but one of choice and era.
When Ultima Online launched in 1997, any player looking to play a graphical MMO had very few choices. UO stood alone for the most part until 1999 when Everquest and Asheron’s Call launched. The choice of game ultimately came down to one of two games: Everquest or Ultima Online. Everquest, offering 3D graphics, required specific hardware to run and it was also a very “game” MMO which focused on killing monsters and obtaining better loot. Ultima Online with a 2D isometric view ran on plenty of mid-range PCs of the day and offered a much more robust offering of features: player housing, crafting, and live events to name a few.
The “golden era” player base, as with today’s players, consisted of every Bartle player-type: killer, achiever, explorer, socializer. While every player is not defined by a single category -- primary killers are still achievers and explorers – those primarily inclined towards one type were going to wind up in a one of the two games. This meant that some of each type were going to mix together in their respective games.
Everquest’s design dictated that it attracted achievers and killers. While exploration was possible and there were chat channels, Everquest lacked the keys to providing an environment for great socialization. So, achievers and killers flocked to Everquest and for the most part anyone playing Everquest could be assumed to be primarily an achiever or killer. Yes, there were still socializers (mostly role players), but by far and large Everquest catered to the achiever or killer mindset.
Ultima Online on the other hand catered almost perfectly to the socializer at the same time offering achievers, killers, and explorers a fulfilling experience. Players in UO were never forced to pick up a weapon and fight. Many UO players made a life for themselves without ever slaying a single beast. I personally know a player that existed within UO without ever once leaving the town of Britain and having almost never picked up a weapon to fight, instead spending his days at the forge talking with players and plying his blacksmithing trade. He was the prime example of how UO allowed primary socializers to exist in an online game. At the time, socializers really had nowhere else to go to find game play that met their needs. UO provided the pen-ultimate socialization experience of it’s day.
Of course, UO also catered to what I like to call the achiever killers: the reds, the player killers, the murderers as some others would have called them. Achiever killers thrive on their destructive ways creating power over their enemies and there is no greater enemy to have than that of a human opponent. Mix this with a tangible feeling of ownership with player housing and eventual player-created cities and the achiever killers found a perfect storm in UO.
Again, players of the golden era had limited choices on what games to play. It is also important to note that these players wanted to play online games. While no one was holding a gun to their head and forcing them to play UO or EQ, there was still a feeling that players were forced to play one of the two most popular MMOs of the time. This lead to player types mixing and competing within game worlds for their own slice of the proverbial pie. Conflict resulted between player types and this was no more evident than what was pre-Trammel UO (aka UO before a safe mirror of the world was created).
The achiever killers in UO loved this. Instead of having to compete against other achiever killers, they could prey on the socializers, explorers, and regular old achievers who inhabited the unforgiving world. Outside of towns, anyone could kill anyone in UO. Upon death, everything the player was carrying at the time could be looted by another player (or sometimes an NPC would swipe an item). UO focused on being a virtual world instead of being a “game that was played online” and there was real risk and reward to the golden era PvP in UO.
While the socializers and non-killer achievers didn’t “love” the fact that they were the sheep that the killer wolf pack fed upon, they couldn’t deny that UO had all the features they wanted. Housing, live events, non-combat oriented game play that meant something to the world; all of these things separated UO from Everquest (and eventually Asheron’s Call). The socializers and achievers of UO were, in a word, stuck like sheep in a field surrounded by wolves. They had to suffer the achiever killers and many left the game because of it.
However, suffer is a bit of a strong word and there were plenty of other factors pushing players away from UO. Also the presence of the “sheep” lead to the rise of what I call the “shepherd”, or better known as the anti-playerkiller (APK). The APKs formed together to defend those that wished to avoid combat and seek justice on those that preyed upon the weak. There wasn’t an ounce of game design or coding put in to make this dynamic system a reality. Players were actually living in a virtual world that featured the full gambit of Bartle player archetypes. Consequence was the true feature of UO and is what made it’s early PvP so unforgettable.
Fast forward to today’s market and I cannot even begin to name all of the AAA titles on the market, let alone all of the underlying B-rate MMOs. However, what I can tell you is that there is a game for every type of player out there. Yet, there is not a single one that recaptures the experience of “golden era” UO.
And therein lays the problem: there is a game for every type of player. No longer are the socializers mixing with the achievers. No longer are the explorers chatting with the killers. The player base is fragmented. It is, so to say, Humpty Dumpty and once it fell down, there was no putting it back together.
Games such as Darkfall and Mortal Online, or server emulation projects such as UO WTF, that promise to bring back that “golden era” are doing nothing more than throwing the achiever killer wolves in a field without any sheep. The wolves turn on each other and quickly realize how boring it gets to fight on equal footing. The dynamic is lost and even the best virtual world fails to bring it back. Before long only the true killers remain and while it certainly can be an enjoyable experience, it is not the magical experience that was to be had in the golden era.
Thus no amount of game design or coding wizardry can bring the magic back. The problem is that the golden era is long gone, yet game developers keep trying to make games that will appeal to every type of player while trying to add a “PvP system” on top of it. This doesn’t work. It can’t work. The market is filled with choice and if a game doesn’t cater directly to the crowd it’s built for, it becomes a generic mess.
I’m still waiting for a true, next generation MMOG to come along; one that focuses on being a virtual world more than just a “game that is played online”. The rest should take care of itself.
When Ultima Online launched in 1997, any player looking to play a graphical MMO had very few choices. UO stood alone for the most part until 1999 when Everquest and Asheron’s Call launched. The choice of game ultimately came down to one of two games: Everquest or Ultima Online. Everquest, offering 3D graphics, required specific hardware to run and it was also a very “game” MMO which focused on killing monsters and obtaining better loot. Ultima Online with a 2D isometric view ran on plenty of mid-range PCs of the day and offered a much more robust offering of features: player housing, crafting, and live events to name a few.
The “golden era” player base, as with today’s players, consisted of every Bartle player-type: killer, achiever, explorer, socializer. While every player is not defined by a single category -- primary killers are still achievers and explorers – those primarily inclined towards one type were going to wind up in a one of the two games. This meant that some of each type were going to mix together in their respective games.
Everquest’s design dictated that it attracted achievers and killers. While exploration was possible and there were chat channels, Everquest lacked the keys to providing an environment for great socialization. So, achievers and killers flocked to Everquest and for the most part anyone playing Everquest could be assumed to be primarily an achiever or killer. Yes, there were still socializers (mostly role players), but by far and large Everquest catered to the achiever or killer mindset.
Ultima Online on the other hand catered almost perfectly to the socializer at the same time offering achievers, killers, and explorers a fulfilling experience. Players in UO were never forced to pick up a weapon and fight. Many UO players made a life for themselves without ever slaying a single beast. I personally know a player that existed within UO without ever once leaving the town of Britain and having almost never picked up a weapon to fight, instead spending his days at the forge talking with players and plying his blacksmithing trade. He was the prime example of how UO allowed primary socializers to exist in an online game. At the time, socializers really had nowhere else to go to find game play that met their needs. UO provided the pen-ultimate socialization experience of it’s day.
Of course, UO also catered to what I like to call the achiever killers: the reds, the player killers, the murderers as some others would have called them. Achiever killers thrive on their destructive ways creating power over their enemies and there is no greater enemy to have than that of a human opponent. Mix this with a tangible feeling of ownership with player housing and eventual player-created cities and the achiever killers found a perfect storm in UO.
Again, players of the golden era had limited choices on what games to play. It is also important to note that these players wanted to play online games. While no one was holding a gun to their head and forcing them to play UO or EQ, there was still a feeling that players were forced to play one of the two most popular MMOs of the time. This lead to player types mixing and competing within game worlds for their own slice of the proverbial pie. Conflict resulted between player types and this was no more evident than what was pre-Trammel UO (aka UO before a safe mirror of the world was created).
The achiever killers in UO loved this. Instead of having to compete against other achiever killers, they could prey on the socializers, explorers, and regular old achievers who inhabited the unforgiving world. Outside of towns, anyone could kill anyone in UO. Upon death, everything the player was carrying at the time could be looted by another player (or sometimes an NPC would swipe an item). UO focused on being a virtual world instead of being a “game that was played online” and there was real risk and reward to the golden era PvP in UO.
While the socializers and non-killer achievers didn’t “love” the fact that they were the sheep that the killer wolf pack fed upon, they couldn’t deny that UO had all the features they wanted. Housing, live events, non-combat oriented game play that meant something to the world; all of these things separated UO from Everquest (and eventually Asheron’s Call). The socializers and achievers of UO were, in a word, stuck like sheep in a field surrounded by wolves. They had to suffer the achiever killers and many left the game because of it.
However, suffer is a bit of a strong word and there were plenty of other factors pushing players away from UO. Also the presence of the “sheep” lead to the rise of what I call the “shepherd”, or better known as the anti-playerkiller (APK). The APKs formed together to defend those that wished to avoid combat and seek justice on those that preyed upon the weak. There wasn’t an ounce of game design or coding put in to make this dynamic system a reality. Players were actually living in a virtual world that featured the full gambit of Bartle player archetypes. Consequence was the true feature of UO and is what made it’s early PvP so unforgettable.
Fast forward to today’s market and I cannot even begin to name all of the AAA titles on the market, let alone all of the underlying B-rate MMOs. However, what I can tell you is that there is a game for every type of player out there. Yet, there is not a single one that recaptures the experience of “golden era” UO.
And therein lays the problem: there is a game for every type of player. No longer are the socializers mixing with the achievers. No longer are the explorers chatting with the killers. The player base is fragmented. It is, so to say, Humpty Dumpty and once it fell down, there was no putting it back together.
Games such as Darkfall and Mortal Online, or server emulation projects such as UO WTF, that promise to bring back that “golden era” are doing nothing more than throwing the achiever killer wolves in a field without any sheep. The wolves turn on each other and quickly realize how boring it gets to fight on equal footing. The dynamic is lost and even the best virtual world fails to bring it back. Before long only the true killers remain and while it certainly can be an enjoyable experience, it is not the magical experience that was to be had in the golden era.
Thus no amount of game design or coding wizardry can bring the magic back. The problem is that the golden era is long gone, yet game developers keep trying to make games that will appeal to every type of player while trying to add a “PvP system” on top of it. This doesn’t work. It can’t work. The market is filled with choice and if a game doesn’t cater directly to the crowd it’s built for, it becomes a generic mess.
I’m still waiting for a true, next generation MMOG to come along; one that focuses on being a virtual world more than just a “game that is played online”. The rest should take care of itself.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Yuck, DCUO PvP
It took me all of about an hour to be bored with DCUO's PvP server. Within the first few minutes of the journeying through the open world I was being repeatedly ganked by level 20+ characters, with no chance of survival or escape. After finally getting to the first quest location, I was then repeatedly ganked again.
Yuck.
SOE, 1999 called, they want their PvP system back.
I will have to re-roll on the PvE server to see if the experience is better. I like the mechanics of the game so far and being able to run at super speed from the moment I set foot into the open world is an amazing feeling. However, I see myself becoming quickly bored with the "Kill 10 Rats" quest types. Hopefully the "dungeons" are better.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Fix: DCUO gets stuck at "FixTimestamps.exe" on Steam install
I just did battle with and slew the dreaded "FixTimestamps.exe" error when installing the recently crowned MMO of the year, DC Universe Online (DCUO), on Steam. The steps are as follows:
Step 1:
Cancel the screen that is open in Steam trying to run the FixTimestamps.exe
Step 2:
Navigate to your steamapps folder in the main Steam folder and then open the "dc universe online" folder.
Example path on Windows 7 x64: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\dc universe online
Step 3:
Open the LaunchPad.exe file and sign into your Station account (register for a new one if you don't have one, it's FREE).
Once logged in, this will launch the DCUO launcher, download any missing updates, and get you ready to play. Once the updates are applied, simply click PLAY. Launching from within Steam next time will work.
Cause of error:
I am not 100% sure on the cause of the error, but I suspect it has something to do with the recent updates not being applied to the Steam version. Bypassing the Steam launch let's the client get the updates and finish the install.
Step 1:
Cancel the screen that is open in Steam trying to run the FixTimestamps.exe
Step 2:
Navigate to your steamapps folder in the main Steam folder and then open the "dc universe online" folder.
Example path on Windows 7 x64: C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\dc universe online
Step 3:
Open the LaunchPad.exe file and sign into your Station account (register for a new one if you don't have one, it's FREE).
Once logged in, this will launch the DCUO launcher, download any missing updates, and get you ready to play. Once the updates are applied, simply click PLAY. Launching from within Steam next time will work.
Cause of error:
I am not 100% sure on the cause of the error, but I suspect it has something to do with the recent updates not being applied to the Steam version. Bypassing the Steam launch let's the client get the updates and finish the install.
Two Phrases: Kingdoms Of Amalur: Reckoning
I'm a Jim Rossignol fan. He writes some seriously poetic shit in the form of game reviews and news articles. A perfect example is his Wot I Think piece for Kingdoms Of Amalur: Reckoning. While the entire post is an excellent read, there are really two phrases that distill the essence of what KoAR is:
The key ingredient, however, and the one that overpowers the other flavours, is the industry-bestriding garlic of World Of Warcraft....and...
You can sense of the results of committee conclusions in almost all areas of the game.These really sum up my experiences with the demo and why I didn't pursue buying the game. 38 Studios, let me know when the Amalur MMOG is ready.
Saturday, February 04, 2012
DOTA 2: Steam's killer App? Killer FREE App?
Steam, as a platform, benefits from having as many users as possible. Every user is a potential game sale or series of sales. Valve, the developers of Steam, have come up with many, many ways to get users to buy into the platform. First, Steam is free to install. Second, they have great sales. And over the last year they have moved into the free 2 play realm bringing F2P MMOs to Steam and even releasing their own Team Fortress 2 as F2P. However, even with Team Fortress 2 being popular, I can't help but feel that Steam is missing a killer app that defines it. Steam needs a completely free app that will drive a massive rush of new blood to it's shores. The more I think about it, the more DOTA 2 is shaping up to be that killer app.
At first I felt that it would be crazy for Valve to not follow the successful model that LoL has laid down. I didn't (and still don't) think DOTA 2 can be as successful as it can be if there is a front-end price tag attached. DOTA 2 needs to be free 2 play. However, the game play of DOTA 2 does not feel suited for the LoL model. DOTA 2 shines by having all the heroes available for every player for every match. DOTA 2 will not work with a rotating pool of free heroes each week.
So how does DOTA 2 go the free 2 play route? Simple. DOTA 2 will be just that: free 2 play. I mean 100%, unobstructed free 2 play. Outside of mailing Valve a wad of cash with a funny note for Gaben, there would be no way for player's to spend cash on the game.
Sound crazy? Maybe, but I think Valve can justify the costs associated by the sheer volume of players it could bring onto Steam. Each Steam user is a couple clicks away from becoming another statistic on Valve's already impressive sales charts.
There is more to it than just bringing new users to Steam. Because not only would this move promote Steam, but it would promote Steamworks -- Valve's game developer tool set -- which further ties games and gamers into the Steam platform. Oh and Steamworks is 100% free for developers to use. If DOTA 2 turns into a smashing, world-wide sensation (it clearly has the potential) with Steamworks doing all the heavy lifting, it will further propel Steamworks into the game development limelight.
The stage is set for Valve to shake things up with DOTA 2. Does this mean a completely free 2 play DOTA 2? I believe so.
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
DOTA 2 isn't a game; it's an interactive experience!
Ever hate a game before even trying it, only to try it and then realize you may be in love with it? That is exactly where I am at with DOTA 2.
Since starting to get involved with League of Legends I have spent a lot of time learning about the history of DOTA and the MOBA genre. Defense of the Ancients, henceforth DOTA, was a mod to Warcraft III that featured teams of five players battling it out with NPCs and towers before destroying the opponents "Ancient". From those simple beginnings, DOTA grew to become massively popular. It's probably responsible for more Warcraft III sales (you need a copy to play the mod) than the actual RTS itself.
When I first started looking into DOTA there was a bit of misconception on my part (and most of the Internet apparently) about how popular it was. The numbers are highly disputed and even harder to nail down. Due to it being a mod, not officially supported by Blizzard (though they like to think it's their property), there is no press releases announcing its player numbers. However, through the playdota.com website, the DOTA lead developer Icefrog noted that approximately 7-10 million players have grabbed the game. And as that's not tracking China, there is speculation the real number is somewhere nearer 20 million. Originally I had come to the conclusion that there was about a million DOTA players worldwide.
So I suppose there is no time like now to admit I was wrong about DOTA's popularity considering I was invited to participate in the beta for Valve's DOTA 2. I may also need to retract my statements where I said DOTA 2 wouldn't be very popular. After playing the beta I'm absolutely floored at how smooth of an experience DOTA 2 is. It's one of the best beta tests I've ever participated in and there is so much more going on than just the game itself. The game is great, but the entire package it's wrapped in is what sells the title.
Before we get too far, let me back track. A lot of people assume my hate of DOTA 2 was coming from my long-standing support for League of Legends. I like League of Legends (LoL). LoL has taken the DOTA formula and made many improvements to it. LoL has done many, many things right and like DOTA2 it spent a lot of time on delivering the "complete package" rather than just the game play. LoL is a resounding success (to the tune of 30+ million accounts). LoL is also free 2 play, which makes it even more amazing as anyone can give it a try.
Now I could spend a lot of time detailing the differences between LoL and DOTA2, but I won't. The important thing to know is that LoL sought to create an update and refreshed version of DOTA while DOTA2 has only sought to recreate DOTA in a new graphics engine (Source) and tie it to a unified platform (Steam). When I had first heard this, I was very disappointed.
DOTA has many frustrating mechanics imposed on it due to the fact it was restricted by the Warcraft III engine. And as DOTA2 is a clone of DOTA being put into a new graphics engine, all of these mechanics were going to be copied over. As DOTA2 has progressed in development it has been very clear that DOTA and DOTA2 are aimed at being the same game. In fact, Valve hired on the lead DOTA developer, Icefrog.
To me that didn't make sense (and even now doesn't make much sense). Why free this game from the shackles of the WC3 engine only to keep the ball and chain? LoL was a smashing success because it dared to be different enough from DOTA while maintaining the classic game play everyone loved. Valve seems to have no interest in improving the experience of the DOTA game play. To them, why fix what isn't broke? While I'd argue that it may not be "technically" broke, some things are just kind of stupid from a design perspective.
But don't let me get off on tangents here. I was hating on DOTA2 because of Valve's seemingly unwillingness to improve on the DOTA experience which I had classified as the game itself. I was being ignorant to the fact that the game play of DOTA was only half the package. The exterior features were just as important and OH MY GOD did Valve hit a home run here.
The first time I logged into DOTA2 I was blown away at how slick the interface was. To my left showed me active users broken down by geographical area. A news feed scrolled the center. And most amazingly, live games that I could log into and spectate were on the right. A click later and I was watching a scrimmage match between some of the best known DOTA2 players in the world along with 200 watchers.
While there are live streams from top players for League of Legends and DOTA, there is nothing that compares to what Valve has put together. The spectator in DOTA 2 is actually in the game, clicking around, directing the camera, pulling up the scoreboard when they want to see it, and they are having a wonderful interactive experience. The difference is that of watching TV (streams) vs playing a video game (DOTA 2 observer mode). I've never enjoyed being a spectator of a video game until I spectated a match of DOTA2.
And in reality that is the point I'm trying to get at: DOTA 2 isn't a game, it's an interactive experience. It's true digital content for the digital consumer. League of Legends is to a degree the same, but it's not built-in (yet!) the way DOTA2 is. If and when LoL is able to build in some of the "digital consumer" features that DOTA2 features it will be equally as stunning (and IMHO LoL is an easier game to understand and spectate than the sometimes overly complex DOTA2).
DOTA 2 isn't perfect. It still has a long way to go to get all of the DOTA heroes added and kinks worked out (and by kinks I mean high skill level type stuff that 99% of the playerbase doesn't notice). The underlying tech is there and the game is solid as it is for the general populace. Yes, some annoying mechanics are going to exist in DOTA2 and that may or may not change with Valve at the helm (as I doubt 2 is going to diverge from the original anytime soon). The only real questions for DOTA2: when is it releasing and will it be free 2 play?
Since starting to get involved with League of Legends I have spent a lot of time learning about the history of DOTA and the MOBA genre. Defense of the Ancients, henceforth DOTA, was a mod to Warcraft III that featured teams of five players battling it out with NPCs and towers before destroying the opponents "Ancient". From those simple beginnings, DOTA grew to become massively popular. It's probably responsible for more Warcraft III sales (you need a copy to play the mod) than the actual RTS itself.
When I first started looking into DOTA there was a bit of misconception on my part (and most of the Internet apparently) about how popular it was. The numbers are highly disputed and even harder to nail down. Due to it being a mod, not officially supported by Blizzard (though they like to think it's their property), there is no press releases announcing its player numbers. However, through the playdota.com website, the DOTA lead developer Icefrog noted that approximately 7-10 million players have grabbed the game. And as that's not tracking China, there is speculation the real number is somewhere nearer 20 million. Originally I had come to the conclusion that there was about a million DOTA players worldwide.
So I suppose there is no time like now to admit I was wrong about DOTA's popularity considering I was invited to participate in the beta for Valve's DOTA 2. I may also need to retract my statements where I said DOTA 2 wouldn't be very popular. After playing the beta I'm absolutely floored at how smooth of an experience DOTA 2 is. It's one of the best beta tests I've ever participated in and there is so much more going on than just the game itself. The game is great, but the entire package it's wrapped in is what sells the title.
Before we get too far, let me back track. A lot of people assume my hate of DOTA 2 was coming from my long-standing support for League of Legends. I like League of Legends (LoL). LoL has taken the DOTA formula and made many improvements to it. LoL has done many, many things right and like DOTA2 it spent a lot of time on delivering the "complete package" rather than just the game play. LoL is a resounding success (to the tune of 30+ million accounts). LoL is also free 2 play, which makes it even more amazing as anyone can give it a try.
Now I could spend a lot of time detailing the differences between LoL and DOTA2, but I won't. The important thing to know is that LoL sought to create an update and refreshed version of DOTA while DOTA2 has only sought to recreate DOTA in a new graphics engine (Source) and tie it to a unified platform (Steam). When I had first heard this, I was very disappointed.
DOTA has many frustrating mechanics imposed on it due to the fact it was restricted by the Warcraft III engine. And as DOTA2 is a clone of DOTA being put into a new graphics engine, all of these mechanics were going to be copied over. As DOTA2 has progressed in development it has been very clear that DOTA and DOTA2 are aimed at being the same game. In fact, Valve hired on the lead DOTA developer, Icefrog.
To me that didn't make sense (and even now doesn't make much sense). Why free this game from the shackles of the WC3 engine only to keep the ball and chain? LoL was a smashing success because it dared to be different enough from DOTA while maintaining the classic game play everyone loved. Valve seems to have no interest in improving the experience of the DOTA game play. To them, why fix what isn't broke? While I'd argue that it may not be "technically" broke, some things are just kind of stupid from a design perspective.
But don't let me get off on tangents here. I was hating on DOTA2 because of Valve's seemingly unwillingness to improve on the DOTA experience which I had classified as the game itself. I was being ignorant to the fact that the game play of DOTA was only half the package. The exterior features were just as important and OH MY GOD did Valve hit a home run here.
The first time I logged into DOTA2 I was blown away at how slick the interface was. To my left showed me active users broken down by geographical area. A news feed scrolled the center. And most amazingly, live games that I could log into and spectate were on the right. A click later and I was watching a scrimmage match between some of the best known DOTA2 players in the world along with 200 watchers.
While there are live streams from top players for League of Legends and DOTA, there is nothing that compares to what Valve has put together. The spectator in DOTA 2 is actually in the game, clicking around, directing the camera, pulling up the scoreboard when they want to see it, and they are having a wonderful interactive experience. The difference is that of watching TV (streams) vs playing a video game (DOTA 2 observer mode). I've never enjoyed being a spectator of a video game until I spectated a match of DOTA2.
And in reality that is the point I'm trying to get at: DOTA 2 isn't a game, it's an interactive experience. It's true digital content for the digital consumer. League of Legends is to a degree the same, but it's not built-in (yet!) the way DOTA2 is. If and when LoL is able to build in some of the "digital consumer" features that DOTA2 features it will be equally as stunning (and IMHO LoL is an easier game to understand and spectate than the sometimes overly complex DOTA2).
DOTA 2 isn't perfect. It still has a long way to go to get all of the DOTA heroes added and kinks worked out (and by kinks I mean high skill level type stuff that 99% of the playerbase doesn't notice). The underlying tech is there and the game is solid as it is for the general populace. Yes, some annoying mechanics are going to exist in DOTA2 and that may or may not change with Valve at the helm (as I doubt 2 is going to diverge from the original anytime soon). The only real questions for DOTA2: when is it releasing and will it be free 2 play?
Monday, January 30, 2012
Bastion, thoughts on MMOs
I've played through Bastion once. I am playing through it again on the New Game + mode. Bastion is the rare type of game that comes in, makes a remarkable impression, and then leaves before its stuck around too long. It also has my juices flowing for a bunch of thoughts about things I'd like to see in an MMO.
The first and most unique element of Bastion is the narrator which narrates not only the story, but the player's every move. When I first talked about Bastion's narration to my wife she commented "so he just repeats back to you what you just did? That's annoying!". I attempted to sidetrack her from that position by showing her some of the game, but then "the kid" (the game's protagonist) picked up a giant hammer to which the narrator announced "the kid picks up his trusty hammer". My wife laughed and walked away. While this example is the game's narration at it's most basic it is not truly the genius that exists later in the game. The narrator is seemless, delivering not only the story but also filling in the gaps between fights and everything else that occurs in the game. By the time I finished Bastion I was a bit sad to say good bye to the narrator. I had grown accustomed to listening to his voice through my journey. It probably doesn't hurt that they have one of the best voice actors ever providing the voice and paired it with an award-winning sound track.
Where would a constant narrator fit into an MMOG? The first immediate example that comes to mind is Dungeons and Dragons Online (DDO). I know I gave DDO a bunch of hate because it was just an RPG set in the D&D Eberron setting and because it missed the boat as far as what makes D&D fun (at least for me). With my personal tastes aside, DDO to a certain degree does have a narrator in place, known as the dungeon master. When adventuring through various dungeon areas the dungeon master will announce certain things such as the "the air hums with flies here" or "the smell of decaying flesh permeates". Usually these pieces of flavor are added for things that are hard to represent in a video game (smells for example). I wasn't sold on the idea when I played DDO, but having played Bastion now I think a dungeon master that follows your entire adventure and provides constantly evolving narration to your activities would work. The real trick would be making it work in a multi-player setting, which given some time I think a developer could work out.
The next outstanding feature of Bastion is it's namesake. The Bastion is a sliver of land, floating over the destroyed world that "the kid" is able to rebuild throughout the process of the game. Each area completed generally results in a shard being obtained. The shard can be brought back to the Bastion to restore a piece of the old world. These restored parts take the form of buildings that allow the player to perform different functions. In addition to the shards there are also relics from the old world that can be placed in the Bastion. Everything from a set of banners to a smoker's pipe add flavor to the player's Bastion. Some are for show and others serve other purposes (such as launching a side quest). Over time there is a real sense of progression to the Bastion.
Now it has always been my dream to have an MMO where the players are tasked with building the world from the ground up. The storyline in Bastion is the classic post-apocalyptic hotbed of building an oasis in the middle of a world wracked by destruction. This, to me, is the perfect setting for an MMO to launch into. It lets the players decide the pace at which the world progresses. Players hold the keys and make the decisions that will forever change their existence in the world. The so called "fourth pillar" of MMOGs is touted to be "story", but why does that story always have to be something the developers created? Why can't it be the story the player's create?
For bonus points, Bastion gets the mechanic for this world building correct as well. Players retrieve shards or relics that have immediate affects on their Bastion. In the case of shards, the player get's to spend them as a sort of currency to build the buildings they wish to have in the Bastion. This is almost directly transferable to an MMOG. Player's would be tasked with retrieving "shards" from the old, destroyed world to use and build items in the new world. Each player would have their slice of the new world in which to build. Guilds and alliances can join together to focus on improving a shared area.
Another part of the Bastion experience that makes the game so refreshing is the idea of player-directed difficulty via the in-game idols. Players can go to their shrine and activate idols they have unlocked. Each idol makes the game inherently more difficult. For example, one idol makes it so enemies randomly block one attack. The reward is increased experience gains and in-game currency. It's a simple idea, but something not seen in an MMO outside of the idea of "heroic" versions of some dungeons. Now it would be a challenge to develop, but I think an MMO could have every player set their own idols to dictate their own difficulty. The challenge would be in making it play nice together with other player's idols.
The other part of the shrine that works so well is that it's not just a UI element in Bastion. It is an actual building the player has fought to restore for the sole purpose of using it's services. This gives better weight to the player setting their idols and takes something that in most MMOs is just a UI element and makes it part of the world. Everything in Bastion is managed via these buildings that the player builds. Want to change your equipment load out? Head to the armory and swap them. Want to change your unique character traits? Head to the distillery.
Oh and the distillery. Let me talk about that. It's a brilliant idea just like the shrine is. In the distillery player's set up "spirits" (aka alcoholic beverages) which modify how the player's avatar works. Some add straight up stats like +10 health while others are more complex such as offering a counter attack mechanic. However, the beauty really isn't in the details. It's in the fact that the distillery takes the monotony of the stats screen out of the UI and inserts it into a practical in-game solution. It doesn't hurt that the player can visit the distillery at any time to "respec" their character.
I understand some of the ideas I bring up here are not entirely original and in most cases there is an example game on the market that exhibits some of the traits that I mention. However, there really hasn't been a mainstream game that has attempted to tackle any of these elements. "The game that shall not be named" with full on voice acting does cover some of the narration, but it is not dynamic and at it's base level is still just uninteresting filler for quests. Bastion's narration is so far above and beyond that it's hard to compare. A Tale in the Desert covers the "let's build a world together", but really that's about all it has. Plenty of MMOGs feature "hard" or "elite" versions of dungeons, quests, or monsters which sort of works out to be like the idols of Bastion, but that's a loose connection at best. The "UI-built-into-the-game" element would be a first for MMOGs, as far as I know. In fact, a lot of MMOGs are more about the UI then the actual game (I'm looking at you EVE and at you World of Add Ons), so seeing an MMOG work towards removing as much of the UI as possible would be interesting.
My concluding point is that we haven't seen an MMO that incorporates a lot of what I've talked about and that's a damn shame. Bastion feels like a really simple idea, but its clearly taken time for something of it's caliber to hit the market. It's a brilliant game and in my opinion, a blue print for a successful MMOG.
The first and most unique element of Bastion is the narrator which narrates not only the story, but the player's every move. When I first talked about Bastion's narration to my wife she commented "so he just repeats back to you what you just did? That's annoying!". I attempted to sidetrack her from that position by showing her some of the game, but then "the kid" (the game's protagonist) picked up a giant hammer to which the narrator announced "the kid picks up his trusty hammer". My wife laughed and walked away. While this example is the game's narration at it's most basic it is not truly the genius that exists later in the game. The narrator is seemless, delivering not only the story but also filling in the gaps between fights and everything else that occurs in the game. By the time I finished Bastion I was a bit sad to say good bye to the narrator. I had grown accustomed to listening to his voice through my journey. It probably doesn't hurt that they have one of the best voice actors ever providing the voice and paired it with an award-winning sound track.
Where would a constant narrator fit into an MMOG? The first immediate example that comes to mind is Dungeons and Dragons Online (DDO). I know I gave DDO a bunch of hate because it was just an RPG set in the D&D Eberron setting and because it missed the boat as far as what makes D&D fun (at least for me). With my personal tastes aside, DDO to a certain degree does have a narrator in place, known as the dungeon master. When adventuring through various dungeon areas the dungeon master will announce certain things such as the "the air hums with flies here" or "the smell of decaying flesh permeates". Usually these pieces of flavor are added for things that are hard to represent in a video game (smells for example). I wasn't sold on the idea when I played DDO, but having played Bastion now I think a dungeon master that follows your entire adventure and provides constantly evolving narration to your activities would work. The real trick would be making it work in a multi-player setting, which given some time I think a developer could work out.
The next outstanding feature of Bastion is it's namesake. The Bastion is a sliver of land, floating over the destroyed world that "the kid" is able to rebuild throughout the process of the game. Each area completed generally results in a shard being obtained. The shard can be brought back to the Bastion to restore a piece of the old world. These restored parts take the form of buildings that allow the player to perform different functions. In addition to the shards there are also relics from the old world that can be placed in the Bastion. Everything from a set of banners to a smoker's pipe add flavor to the player's Bastion. Some are for show and others serve other purposes (such as launching a side quest). Over time there is a real sense of progression to the Bastion.
Now it has always been my dream to have an MMO where the players are tasked with building the world from the ground up. The storyline in Bastion is the classic post-apocalyptic hotbed of building an oasis in the middle of a world wracked by destruction. This, to me, is the perfect setting for an MMO to launch into. It lets the players decide the pace at which the world progresses. Players hold the keys and make the decisions that will forever change their existence in the world. The so called "fourth pillar" of MMOGs is touted to be "story", but why does that story always have to be something the developers created? Why can't it be the story the player's create?
For bonus points, Bastion gets the mechanic for this world building correct as well. Players retrieve shards or relics that have immediate affects on their Bastion. In the case of shards, the player get's to spend them as a sort of currency to build the buildings they wish to have in the Bastion. This is almost directly transferable to an MMOG. Player's would be tasked with retrieving "shards" from the old, destroyed world to use and build items in the new world. Each player would have their slice of the new world in which to build. Guilds and alliances can join together to focus on improving a shared area.
Another part of the Bastion experience that makes the game so refreshing is the idea of player-directed difficulty via the in-game idols. Players can go to their shrine and activate idols they have unlocked. Each idol makes the game inherently more difficult. For example, one idol makes it so enemies randomly block one attack. The reward is increased experience gains and in-game currency. It's a simple idea, but something not seen in an MMO outside of the idea of "heroic" versions of some dungeons. Now it would be a challenge to develop, but I think an MMO could have every player set their own idols to dictate their own difficulty. The challenge would be in making it play nice together with other player's idols.
The other part of the shrine that works so well is that it's not just a UI element in Bastion. It is an actual building the player has fought to restore for the sole purpose of using it's services. This gives better weight to the player setting their idols and takes something that in most MMOs is just a UI element and makes it part of the world. Everything in Bastion is managed via these buildings that the player builds. Want to change your equipment load out? Head to the armory and swap them. Want to change your unique character traits? Head to the distillery.
Oh and the distillery. Let me talk about that. It's a brilliant idea just like the shrine is. In the distillery player's set up "spirits" (aka alcoholic beverages) which modify how the player's avatar works. Some add straight up stats like +10 health while others are more complex such as offering a counter attack mechanic. However, the beauty really isn't in the details. It's in the fact that the distillery takes the monotony of the stats screen out of the UI and inserts it into a practical in-game solution. It doesn't hurt that the player can visit the distillery at any time to "respec" their character.
I understand some of the ideas I bring up here are not entirely original and in most cases there is an example game on the market that exhibits some of the traits that I mention. However, there really hasn't been a mainstream game that has attempted to tackle any of these elements. "The game that shall not be named" with full on voice acting does cover some of the narration, but it is not dynamic and at it's base level is still just uninteresting filler for quests. Bastion's narration is so far above and beyond that it's hard to compare. A Tale in the Desert covers the "let's build a world together", but really that's about all it has. Plenty of MMOGs feature "hard" or "elite" versions of dungeons, quests, or monsters which sort of works out to be like the idols of Bastion, but that's a loose connection at best. The "UI-built-into-the-game" element would be a first for MMOGs, as far as I know. In fact, a lot of MMOGs are more about the UI then the actual game (I'm looking at you EVE and at you World of Add Ons), so seeing an MMOG work towards removing as much of the UI as possible would be interesting.
My concluding point is that we haven't seen an MMO that incorporates a lot of what I've talked about and that's a damn shame. Bastion feels like a really simple idea, but its clearly taken time for something of it's caliber to hit the market. It's a brilliant game and in my opinion, a blue print for a successful MMOG.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning Demo Reviewed
The Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning (KoAR) demo was released on Steam and I had a chance to put about an hour into it. I've been hard on the game in the past for it's very generic nature in the marketing spins produced by it's developer 38 Studios. Having played the demo now, I am still worried the title is a little bit too generic fantasy to rise above the field. However, there were a couple bright spots that gave me some hope for the game.KoAR starts as almost any RPG starts by providing an origin story for the player's character. In this case, the player's avatar died on a foreign battlefield and their body dumped into the Well of Souls. As luck would have it, the Well of Souls ends up working to restore the character to life. It is a very organic introduction to the game and setting up the player's character. It also gives a blank slate entrance into the world and sets up a plausible re-spawn scenario.
Once resurrected from the pile of bodies in the Well of Souls, the player is whisked through some battles. Apparently the "bad guys" are attacking the Well of Souls. A few combat training scenarios later the player is on their way.
The combat felt very "actiony" (if such a word were to exist). However, after a while I felt like i was just left and right clicking like mad. The controls were as expected (WASD movement, click to attack), but I couldn't quite figure out how to hot key cast spells. It required a button press and then a right click. I'd much have preferred just to press a button.
One glaring problem I had with combat was targeting. Many times it looked like my avatar was targeting a specific monster only to unleash my attack in a completely different direction. Or just the opposite, I was charging an enemy down and attacked only to have the attack choose a target to the side. Fortunately, once hitting a target the game does a good job of keeping the player locked on. The combat varies a good bit based on the weapon selected and it was refreshing to see that spell casters could still handle themselves in melee combat.
Even with the targeting issue, the system showed promise. The move to action combat is a welcome sight for open RPGs and KoAR does a good job to fit the action in with the rest of the RPG goodies. There are still potions and other things to do all accessible via quick menus that work very well. The menus are well laid out and offer mouse click or hot key movement. I found most of the UI intuitive from character level ups to inventory management.
Overall I think KoAR will be a good RPG, but it still feels and looks generic. The action combat helps separate it from the crowd a little bit, but I'm not sure it will be the game's ticket to success. I think the keys to the game are locked outside of the demo. The supposed open world, non linear progression, and complex destiny ( aka class ) system may sell the game to the RPG faithful. I'm interested to see how the game does.
After playing the demo I wouldn't buy the game myself, but that's because I'm pretty spoiled by Steam sales and have a back log of great RPGs to play. At a later date with a good sale I would feel comfortable buying this.
View my screenshots here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)