tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-78013444136124477172024-01-18T16:20:11.049+01:00Nils' BlogA blog about MMOs and everything elseNilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.comBlogger493125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-28402254971248888602016-09-18T10:42:00.001+02:002016-09-18T14:55:01.337+02:00Legion is well done and I like it<i>In fact, I play it a lot right now. Already 3 days /played at level 110.</i> <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a> Now, there’s a real possibility that it can’t keep me long-term, like every expansion since TBC could not. But however it turns out, Legion has very much been worth its money. What Blizzard calls "class fantasy" - classes having diverse strengths and weaknesses - combined with rewarding 5-player content is a <u>huge</u> improvement. <br />
Enough of the useless praise … How could it be better?<br />
<br />
<b>The Power Scaling!</b><br />
Sometimes someone is just about to find the solution and then, one inch in front of it, he stops. That’s what Blizzard did with scaling levels and PvP.<br />
<br />
See, in Legion, your level doesn’t increase your power, it only unlocks content. Well, Legion tries to sell the illusion to you, that your level increases your power, but it’s just that: an illusion. And an unimmersive illusion as well, as the truth is not even well hidden.<br />
<br />
All mobs scale with your level – so why have levels, except to unlock content and skills? ..<br />
The same with PvP: When you enter PvP, the amount by which your level and even your gear increases your power, is compressed by a factor of 10. Ten!<br />
<br />
Let’s turn this around: Legion has proven that players don’t need to grow in power nearly as fast as Blizzard has thought in the past! That’s great news! <br />
<br />
Hopefully, the next expansion will have ways to unlock content and character skills (formerly levels) and characters that gain power at one 10th of the speed of today (todays PvP power scaling).<br />
<br />
<b>What are the disadvantages?</b><br />
The illusion of super-fast power growth, that everyone with half a brain can see through, is gone.<br />
<br />
<b>What are the advantages:</b><br />
A super-complicated system is pruned away.<br />
No special rules for PvP required. You build <u>one</u> character.<br />
A more immersive world, where last year’s gods can’t be one-hit by a stray arrow.Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-77093779307004711852016-06-05T10:25:00.003+02:002016-06-05T10:27:56.345+02:00I like the Warcraft Movie!<i>Turns out I was wrong to trust the reviews</i> <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The Warcraft movie is good. Not phenomenal, but good. A very solid fantasy movie, especially compared to other fantasy movies, of which 90% are crap. Especially considering how bad it could have been!<br />
Most interestingly, my wife liked it too. And she has never play Warcraft anything. So did a friend of hers. <br />
<br />
Is the movie perfect? No. It has flaws, like those that many reviewers called out. But those flaws don't really weigh all that heavy. I honestly wish that they made a second (and third ..) movie. The Warcraft story until the end of WotLK is pretty good - and even more so if the movie takes the chance to improve a bit on it.<br />
<br />
Finally, the story of Arthas is not easy to tell well. But if it is, it has a huge potential!<br />
<br />
And, finally, watching that movie made me wish Blizzard made a solo RPG in the World of Warcraft. There's some potential there, too. It's a pity to leave all the AAA solo open-world RPGs to Bethesda.Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-31344636785524748692016-06-04T09:41:00.001+02:002016-06-04T09:43:24.785+02:00The Warcraft MovieI going to see it tonight. But I read some reviews before that.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><div><a href="http://www.indiewire.com/2016/06/warcraft-review-duncan-jones-1201683601/">http://www.indiewire.com/2016/06/warcraft-review-duncan-jones-1201683601/</a></div><div><blockquote class="tr_bq"> But the most troubling thing about Garona isn’t her cheap aesthetic, or her flat affect, or even the fact that the film’s plot would be almost completely unchanged if she were erased from it entirely. No, the most troubling thing about Garona is that a human man had sex with a female orc in order to bring her into this world (even the “Warcraft” community is confused about her lineage, and yet the film bafflingly assumes that it won’t be a problem for newcomers).</blockquote>I doubt anyone at Blizzard & Universal considers this a major problem. Afterall it's "gameplay first". Who cares about immersion or logic or that stories make any sense as long as the audience is engaged by adrenaline, raw speed and lots of strong colors?<br />
<br />
Of course, I do have to watch the movie anyway. :)</div>Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-20251630942807260312016-04-30T14:08:00.001+02:002016-05-14T22:25:51.880+02:00I don't think this needs commenting<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ujh0VHCW3cY/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Ujh0VHCW3cY?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nu0shTl93ds/VySgBQA8dNI/AAAAAAAAESA/pwl1FFBAguELWtZs2QXRA5y0vRNkhtYHQCLcB/s1600/1_cr.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-nu0shTl93ds/VySgBQA8dNI/AAAAAAAAESA/pwl1FFBAguELWtZs2QXRA5y0vRNkhtYHQCLcB/s320/1_cr.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-78052578220648006242016-04-13T17:06:00.003+02:002016-05-14T22:12:57.605+02:00Downtime: A Gameplay Element<i>A few days ago, having read that Blizzard was forcing a private vanilla server to shut down, I decided for the very first time to join one - another one of course. I started playing an undead mage at <a href="http://vanillagaming.org/">vanillagaming.org</a>. To my surprise, the setup was trivially easy.<br />
</i> <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<a href="http://vanillagaming.org/">vanillagaming.org</a> runs the vanilla WoW version just before TBC came out. Consequently, it represents the very edge of classic WoW. For example, the mobs in the starting zone at this time already hit for 1 HP and were yellow (wouldn’t attack unless attacked first). Still, this is a different game than today’s WoW. The aspect that hit me first was: Downtime.<br />
<br />
Remember: In classic, mana only started to regenerate 5 seconds after the last spell was cast - and this regeneration wasn’t especially fast, too. Consequently you had to sit down and drink to regain mana. Also to regenerate health, the classes that couldn’t heal themselves had to sit down and eat!<br />
<br />
The consequence is that after every second or third fight against a single enemy my mage sits down and drinks. After every fight against two enemies he sit down. Fortunately, mages can summon their own water. <br />
<br />
It is easy to say that downtime is terrible game design. You could claim that it is not engaging. You could claim that the healer rotation when fighting Onyxia, where some healers stopped healing to enter the mana regeneration state (5 seconds rule) was ridiculous.<br />
<br />
But I disagree.<br />
<br />
Downtime doesn’t equal downtime. From a game design point of view you need to look at the mind of the player, not his fingers! <b>A game is a series of interesting thoughts and as long as the player’s mind is busy, it doesn’t matter that his fingers are still.</b> The inverse is also true: It is perfectly possible to create a game where the player has to do something all the time, without his mind being busy. I’ve seen this with modern WoW a lot. Leveling is extremely fast, most mobs die instantly after contact with you. Consequently, your fingers are never still – but your mind is.<br />
<br />
Classic WoW is the opposite: Yes, I sit down and drink. But my mind is busy! While my character drinks, I<br />
<ul><li> try to figure out where my quest objective is. By reading the quest – it’s not marked on the map!</li>
<li>I try to figure out how to approach the next few enemies – whom shall I sheep first? Does it make sense to first fire a frostbolt to slow the mobs and then use a fireball for more dps? Is my mana good enough already to take on the next enemy? Should I wait until it is full?</li>
<li>Do I need to summon more water?</li>
<li>Should I follow the road or try a shortcut? Do I see enemies there? Would it really be faster if I aggroed one of them?</li>
<li>What is the best sequence of doing my quests? – When should I teleport home (possible once per hour).</li>
<li>How much experience is needed for my next level? What abilities will I get? How do I optimize the route through various quests, quest-givers and my trainer?</li>
<li>Will that mob over there come too close and attack me? Should I get up now to avoid him? Where do I move?</li>
<li>Are those two mobs too close and will they alert each other when I attack them?</li>
<li>Did I specc correctly? Where am I going to spend the next talent point?</li>
<li>Does the player over there need help?</li>
<li>Is going to the next dungeon entrance and waiting there / asking in chat for group members worth the time or should I rather continue leveling? Will the next dungeon need quests, which ones? Should I get those quests now or trust in people being able to share them later?</li>
<li>Should I loot that node of duranium? Should I try to stay close to the hills, because there’s more nodes there, usually?</li>
<li>... </li>
</ul>To have these thoughts you need time. Due to the general pace of the game you have it! Even collecting simple quest elements takes 3 seconds. <b>The game manages to keep my mind busy without using adrenaline all the time.</b><br />
<br />
Sure, there are intense moments; for example, when I decide to slow the first mob with a frostbolt, sheep the second and burst down the third. There is the occasional green item that I might either sell to make serious gold or equip myself. There might be a red player rushing by - but those intense moments alternate with moments of recreation and tranquility.<br />
<br />
Overall: I am enjoying my time with WoW classic. In contrast to current WoW, it doesn’t rely on adrenaline and action alone to keep my mind busy. I like that. And I hope Blizzard will eventually understand the difference between down time and down time.Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-20360328698925462522014-12-09T12:46:00.002+01:002014-12-10T06:12:44.202+01:00Divinity: Original Sin, Dragon Age: Inquisition and turn-based combat<i>I bought Dragon Age 3: Inquisition about a week ago. I started playing it and loved everything about it – except for the combat. I switched the difficulty to super-easy, but the story itself was not enough to keep me playing either, and thus I started thinking.</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>What if Dragon Age had real tactical combat. That is: turn-based combat. It was immediately obvious to me that I would love it in that case. So I did what I always do before I put a game away – I read reviews. It turned out that several reviewers had had the same idea and proposed to play D:OS. And so I did.<br />
<br />
D:OS is a very solid role playing game with slightly outdated graphics and a budget that has been some million too low. For example, I wanted to play an old male wizard, but the only character model I could have is that of a 20-years old body-builder. This is annoying. However, once I encountered the turn-based combat it was easy to overlook this flaw.<br />
<br />
In many ways D:OS is the opposite of DA:I. DA:I has good - even brilliant - sound, graphics and general production value. But D:OS has good combat. And since combat is the core gameplay of both games it is easy to say which game is more fun to me.<br />
<br />
Next I was thinking about about Skyrim. I had recently tried the Requiem Mod which turns Skyrim into an ‘immersive’ role playing game. Actually, it also turns Skyrim into a damn hard game. At first person perspective the most important skills are reaction and timer-based (blocking, swinging, moving). Skyrim is not all that fun to me this way. I really love that one arrow can almost kill me. But I want to evade this arrow with good tactics without being dependent on my twitch skills and muscle memory. <br />
<br />
How brilliant would Skyrim be if combat were turn-based? I think it would be a very different game – but still a really good PC game. This is also the problem: Games like Dragon Age and Skyrim, nowadays, are not PC games, but console games ported to the PC. And console gamers want to lie/sit on the sofa and relax while mowing through enemies. PC gamers want, at least some of them, more than just a relaxing distraction. Real turn-based combat provides this; DA:I - even with lots of ‘space pushing’ - does not.<br />
I really hope the industry has understood this now. <br />
<br />
Summary: D:OS, even though it has a lot of shortcomings (graphics, general production quality, and actually the fact that I play with a walkthrough one ALT-TAB away) is <b>HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!</b><br />
<br />
<br />
Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-35428277666031163002014-09-15T13:58:00.000+02:002014-09-15T18:07:57.925+02:00Healing in Warlords of Draenor and in general<i>There has been a very nice <a href="http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/14278968594#20">blue post by Taepsilum</a> yesterday.</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><u><b>(1)</b></u> Quotes:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">[..] Healing in Mists, especially in raids and especially later in the expansion, suffered from three major problems: 1) the power of healing relative to player health pools meant that injured players could be topped off almost instantly; 2) mana became increasingly irrelevant as a constraint, with many healers actively reforging out of Spirit; and 3) "smart heals" accounted for a very large portion of healing done, meaning that for some healers their targeting decisions were almost meaningless.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span> <span style="color: blue;">[..] The problem is that when healing was in that state, the only way we could kill someone in a raid or dungeon was with massive damage, fatal if the healer didn't react instantly; it led to sudden spike deaths, punished latency, and made healing more like whack-a-mole and less like a series of <b>tactical decisions</b>. And in raids, as soon as maximizing throughput becomes all that matters, healing risks turning into a rotation performed irrespective of the encounter or the incoming damage.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span> <span style="color: blue;">[..] We want to <b>slow down the pace</b> a bit, and for the challenge in healing to lie more in making decisions about spell usage and targeting, and less in twitch-reaction and sustaining a DPS-style rotation. This also means that the cost of a mistake is not a dead player, but rather a more injured one, giving you a chance to fix your error. [..]</span></blockquote><br />
<u><b>(2)</b></u><br />
First, I like most of this post a lot. It makes me hopeful that - at least in the beginning - WoD will have 5-man dungeons that are actually interesting as a healer. This were in stark contrast to most of WoW since the introduction of DungeonFinder in the middle of WotLK.<br />
<br />
The exception being healing in Cataclysm dungeons with my druid back then; even the DungeonFinder ones. They were interesting and fun. I had a lot of trouble healing raids in Cataclysm, though. Not because I didn't put out enough healing or was running oom, but because I constantly died due to standing in some kind of fire or not with the group or with the group when I shouldn't have, etc. <br />
Basically I liked the healing minigame - but to also have to be on the move constantly or standing in one specific spot at the right time was a bit too much for me. I raided maybe 5 or 6 times in Cataclysm.<br />
<br />
The healing I liked most (of course) was the one in classic WoW. So, let's have a look at what has changed and why.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(3)</b></u><br />
Healing in classic WoW consisted of slow/fast healing spells (reaction), low/high throughput healing spells, mana-efficient/inefficient healing spells, the need for movement and trying to not be hit by mobs.<br />
<br />
Healers were constantly making decisions on several fronts: <br />
<ul><li>long-term decisions: Can I spare the mana?</li>
<li>short-term decisions: What do I have to do to keep the group from wiping? (reaction time / necessary throughput)</li>
<li>single-target or multiple-target heal?</li>
<li>need for movement, which prevented efficient usage of most healing spells.</li>
<li>need to not being hit by mobs, which not only resulted in the usual amount of group damage, but due to pushback, also resulted in much less healing for everyone.</li>
</ul><br />
Classic wasn't perfect. You can imagine combinations, like a spell that is slow and moderately efficient, but can be used during movement and while being hit without pushback. Anyway, classic WoW's healing decision making was interesting enough to be fun.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(4)</b></u><br />
Now, you might think that the above combinations are obvious, but, in fact, this is not the way healing always worked in WoW.<br />
<br />
For long periods of time, whenever the power-creep had set in, during an expansion, healing turned into some kind of hps rotation, where you had to cast spells in some kind of inter-dependent and/or procc-dependent order and without looking at mana. In this case, healers were just like damage dealers, with the irrelevant difference that they dealt healing instead of damage. <br />
With the addition of smart heals, which decide on their own who should be the target of the heal, healers played the same way damage dealers played in dungeons: they spammed their AoE rotation irrespective of what happened. <br />
<br />
I am happy the WoD developers recognized that this is not optimal! This is very important. A MMO is better if it offers different play styles. In fact, the more different, the better. Which is, why class homogenization is really a terrible thing and should be done very carefully, especially in the name of something as overhyped on player forums, like 'balance'.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(5)</b></u><br />
Now, WoD developers once again, try to go back to the mana-limited healing. That's great. Furthermore, they aim to make movement difficult for casters again. This is also great! With the exception of too much push-back protection (healers don't have to try not to be hit by mobs) we are almost there (back in classic). And pushback protection is not relevant, anyway, in modern WoW, because tanking is not about threat anymore as tanks produce massive AoE threat whatever they do. That is another post.<br />
<br />
Anyway, healing looks reasonably good in WoD with one more difference remaining to classic: <br />
<br />
<u><b>(6)</b></u><br />
See, in classic WoW casters only regenerated meaningful amounts of mana if they hadn't cast for the last five seconds. This lead to a play style very, very different from that of damage dealers. Healing was a tactical/strategical challenge. It was not so much about being fast or active, but about trying to do nothing whenever possible. Healers would watch the battlefield, constantly thinking and judging what to do next and when. They may not have pressed buttons all that often. But, mentally, they were often the most active players. I know one healer in classic who was well known on the server to let tanks and players drop to very low amounts of health before healing them up again. He rarely ran oom and since he usually succeeded at keeping the tank alive, even in tight situations, he was very well respected.<br />
<br />
With Cataclysm, however, the developers considered this a bad mechanic. Players doing nothing for long periods of time didn't fit into their ever-faster philosohy. ("<i>We don't want to reward inactivity</i>" - as if watching the battle meant being inactive!)<br />
As a consequence they added super-mana-efficient heals that could be cast for forever and removed the extra-fast mana-regeneration after 5 seconds of inactivity. Healers now regenerated a moderate amount of mana irrespective of spell casting. <br />
<br />
<u><b>(7)</b></u><br />
This ended in catastrophe. Healers were completely overwhelmed by the combination of <br />
<ul><li>dungeons that required team work, single-target damage and crowd control instead of AoE (like in late WotLK)</li>
<li>players who weren't used to this anymore </li>
<li>the new healing philosophy which I just explained</li>
<li>all this in combination with the DungeonFinder which must not be used in combination with non-trivial content, as Blizzard has learnt since then.</li>
</ul><br />
But what about the Cataclysm healing if done right? It wasn't terrible. In fact, it was pretty neat in 5-man dungeons, if you had a reasonable group, some self-confidence (one of those things many healers don't seem to have) and if you had understood that you had to cast your cheap heal <b>all-the-time</b>.<br />
Players who hadn't understood the difference to healing in prior expansions, however, were screwed. <br />
<br />
In Cataclysm you didn't regenerate more mana if you hadn't cast for 5 seconds. Consequently, if you tried to cast as rarely as possible, followed by your most powerful (and most expensive / mana-inefficient) heal, you would run out-of-mana very, very fast. Healers who tried to adjust to the new-found difficulty of Cataclysm dungeons and tried to go back the the mana-efficient healing of pre-Cataclysm times, ran constantly oom - often without understanding why.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(8)</b></u><br />
The disadvantage of Cataclysm healing was that, constantly spamming your mana-efficient healing spells, while also looking out for mana-saving proccs made healing very stressful. Especially, when combined with raid-like positioning mechanics. For me, the 5-man dungeon stress level was still ok - but raiding was too exhausting to be fun. <br />
<br />
In addition, contrary to the design goal, healing in practice didn't go from using the super-cheap heals to the more inefficient ones while content became more difficult. Instead, it went from using the inefficient ones rarely if the content was easy (less work), to using the inefficient ones more often if content became more difficult. The difficulty sweet spot where you <b>had</b> to use the efficient ones all the time and supplemented them with the inefficient ones, was very hard to hit for the designers. <br />
<br />
And, last but not least, healers, facing easy content, were lazy and used the inefficient spells rarely, instead of the efficient ones often. Consequently, they felt bad for knowing that they played sub-optimal. But there just wasn't any need to play better if the content was sufficiently easy.<br />
This is in contrast to the old healing philosophy which made healers feel good whenever they didn't have to heal. They were rewarded with mana and short relaxing breaks when they cast as little as possible and, consequently, were happy whenever they could just watch the battle. Of course, damage dealers and tanks not having much self-healing/absorbs back then also prevented healers from ever becoming superfluous, no matter how easy the content; that's another difference to now.<br />
<br />
Eventually, and yet again, power creep set in. At that point I had already left my raid group, 5-man dungeons were super-boring as a healer, the open world was made trivial (not least due to pve-pvp separation) and thus, the announcement of a whole expansion about pandas (Pandas!) was quite enough to make me quit.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(9)</b></u><br />
Healing in WoD looks good so far. Not great, but good. I hope that after the ability pruning, healers will still have lots of heals to choose from. To have just one fast/inefficient/high throughput and one slow/efficient/low throughput heal for single targets and multiple targets makes four heals for all healers. That's boring.<br />
<br />
Healers should be different! There should be many more heals for different situations. One shouldn't be afraid of a heal that is moderately efficient, very slow, has moderate throughput, rewards mana if the healer is hit (becomes very efficient), but turns into a high-throughput HoT that costs extra mana over time (turns into inefficient) if the healer starts moving while casting. This kind of ability may add complexity, but it also adds some depth - especially for the game as whole! Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-2863581343808447912014-09-09T13:00:00.001+02:002014-09-09T15:40:54.437+02:00World of Warcraft and what has happened<i>It's been some time that I wrote anything interesting about WoW (or anything at all :). I quit when Pandaria was announced and deleted all my characters. Pandas for a whole expansion, for me, was the proof that Blizzard was finally more about "What could be cool?" than about "What could be great?". I could have accepted pandas being added, but a whole expansion just about them was ridiculous and still is.</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><u><b>(You can check out anytime you like)</b></u><br />
.. but you can never leave. MMOs, that you spent thousands of hours playing, don't just let you go. Just like those two years of partying in your twenties in Barecelona won't let you go. <br />
<br />
Now, as Warlords of Draenor is coming, I played a bit in Pandaria. While doing so I thought about what has changed. What changes were really for the better what was for the worse?<br />
<br />
It's a very long list. In fact, it is an incredibly long list. As usual, I will concentrate on a few major negative changes. The reason is that I just don't remember the good ones all that well. Whenever there was a change I agreed with I was happy and forgot about it. It's the negative ones that I have spent lots of time thinking about. And, honestly, I do think WoW changed more for the worse than for the better.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(The PvE/PvP Separation)</b></u><br />
The very first bad change that I can remember came with The Burning Crusade: The separation of PvE and PvP items.<br />
<br />
My basic problem is this: If I want to play on a server where open-world PvP is a possibility (horde vs alliance, you know), I want to have items equipped that are good for PvP. But to gain those items, since TBC, I need to do PvP, not PvE. So, what exactly am I doing in that open world, where I can only gain PvE items that are not desirable for the open world?<br />
<br />
PvE and PvE-items don't make me better in the open world; not when it counts: when I am ambushed by a player. The only thing that PvE items are good for is raiding. And that's not enough for a casual player like me - especially not with raid finder around that allows me to find out about the story irrespective of my performance and any community. Topping the dps meter was always a questionable fun; but to do so in anonymous raid finder is really not worth it.<br />
<br />
This leads to the absurd consequence that I don't care about 90% of the game, and especially the open world, anymore. Only in BGs can I acquire items that are useful. So all I am doing is battlegrounds and some minor questing while disenchanting every item I get this way. I might do this for reputation so that I can buy an enchanting recipe that I'd like to have (even though I can enchant stuff via the auction house, too nowadays). Or I might do it to earn some gold that I need to repair my stuff. But, really, the open world and dungeons, something WoW was <b>about</b> in classic have mostly disappeared from what I do due to this single change alone. <br />
<br />
<u><b>(Emblems, boring loot and itmlvls, skill homogenization)</b></u><br />
Emblems, justice, valor, automatic loot distribution, epics for everybody, itmlvls etc.<br />
<br />
This change started slowly with TBC and then really came at the start of WotLK. Suddenly everybody had epics. But those were boring. Players got them with emblems by doing dailies. Those dailies were terribly boring. You didn't do a dungeon, because dungeons were fun to explore or survive as a group. Instead, you did it to get 120/120 emblems and a boring item.<br />
<br />
There were no happy drops any more. Instead, you constantly felt unhappy because you didn't have enough emblems. This turned the world a bit more from a mysterious place with rarely visited, interesting locations, like dungeons, into an automaton that rewarded effort with predictable rewards. It contributed significantly to the demystification of WoW.<br />
<br />
Just like the fact that all kinds of fun items suddenly disappeared. In classic dungeons you could find items with all kinds of interesting proccs, speeds, properties. In TBC and especially WotLK those disappeared. This trend continued until Pandaria when an item was nothing more than an itmlvl for a specific item slot. <br />
In classic you could say something about the items your character had: they had a character, like an unusual procc, like improving some elemental damage, like having a downside, like the boss it dropped from and that it somehow fit in theme to that boss. In TBC and especially WotLK you couldn't. All you could say was that you needed X runs to get bland item Y - just like everybody else. That item Y would have primary stats that are exactly identical to all other items for that slot with that itmlvl.<br />
<br />
This "homogenization" also applied to character abilities, battlegrounds and dungeons. Just like items became similar in that they were just an itmlvl for an itmslot, all characters' abilities became similar to help make arena and raid dps more balanced -a not all that important goal, considering that most WoW players have never been hardcore raiders.<br />
<br />
Battlegrounds became the same: they all required a similar amount of time to complete. Just like items, they lost their 'soul'. Waiting for an endless long Warsong battle to finish might have been annoying, but it added soul to Warsong and it made some battles memorable. Waiting for the timer, however, prevented any Warsong battle to become memorable ever again. And don't even get me started on Alterac Valley, cross-server BGs or automatic teleports to the BG. They all added to the erosion and finally elimination of server identity, let alone realm pride.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(Dungeon Finder)</b></u><br />
Of course, the worst change ever was the dungeon finder. In fact, it was so bad that it often would not be copied by competitors; and those, really, copied anything else from WoW without any sense or understanding.<br />
<br />
The dungeon finder essentially removed dungeons from the game. In their stead it added AoE that was so terribly boring that nobody liked doing daily dungeon runs already after a few months. In fact, it was so amazingly terrible that Blizzard itself tried to correct the mistake with Cataclysm and more difficult dungeons. Of course, this didn't work. Difficult dungeons worked in a social game. They don't work in an asocial game, like the one dungeon finder had created.<br />
<br />
Looking at WoW sub numbers, you can clearly see how in mid-WotLK, when Blizzard added the dungeon finder, the game stopped growing within weeks - as did my friends list! Now, you can call that coincidence. Correlation isn't causation; I know. But correlation always is a good hint. And outside of math there's no absolute proof, anyway.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(Super-easy leveling game)</b></u> <br />
Ghostclawler gave an interview not long ago where he said that one of is main goals with WoW had been to open it up to even more new players. I'd love to have a look at Blizzard's statistics - I am pretty sure he failed.<br />
Turning the leveling game from easy-to-do into super-über-easy-to-do might have stopped players completely new to computer games, from dying often in the beginning. But that was unnecessary, because dying in WoW had never been much of a problem. You just ran to your corpse and continued. It was fine!<br />
<br />
After Ghostcrawler's changes, the only way to die in the open world level 1-60 was to become disconnected. The only way to not kill something was to not press any button at all. It was impossible if you had a pet.<br />
<br />
Sure, new players died less. But after a few hours they also became very tired of this ridiculous game. It was like chess with 16 queens - in fact, it probably was even a lot easier than this. I know a few people who played WoW super-casually just for the questing/exploration fun and the occasional dungeon. Almost all of them quit with this change. The change, that was supposed to help new players into the game, had turned all but the hard-core raiders and hardcore PvPers (who didn't care about leveling, in the first place) away.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(Power creep and resets)</b></u> <br />
I still don't really get this. At the start of TBC Blizzard thought to have found just how much more powerful an item has to be to feel like a worthwhile replacement of the current one. And so the power creep started not just for the top 1% raiders, but for everybody.<br />
While I ran around in classic for a year without changing my items all that much, suddenly I would swap them ever more often. Sure, after I reached another tier I was considerably more powerful - but that only helped to make a lot of the game irrelevant (dungeons, the open world). I remember how happy I was when I finally created +2% crit gloves in classic. It was an epic recipe. Did I feel the increased power? Hardly! Did I enjoy those gloves? A lot!!<br />
<br />
Blizzard's response to the power creep were ever faster resets by introducing a new 'tier' and making the old one easy to get. It made items forgettable, it made returning to your 'epic' character after a break much! less rewarding, it turned items even more into rewards, instead of, well, items of a fantasy world. <br />
<br />
De-mystification of a MMO cannot be avoided completely with time - but it can be helped by the developers. Blizzard, being mostly power-gamers themselves, had lost all feeling of the soul or even the lore of WoW, and consequently changed the game into a version that didn't offer much of it in the first place. All with the excuse of "gameplay first". Which is, like any white/black idea, not a good one; especially not if you interpret it in Blizzard's extreme way.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(Rotations and speed of combat)</b></u> <br />
In the beginning, my mage was about spamming fireballs with a few firebursts, frostnovas, blink, sheep and a few other spells. Nowadays it is about reacting to proccs shown on my action bar. This change happened pretty late with Cataclysm and it's not even completely bad. It's just that it is mostly good for raiding; something that never was my main activity in WoW. Outside of raiding the rotations mostly take too long to be of any use. <br />
<br />
This is especially true since the open world / dungeons are so super-trivial. Tell me how many affliction warlocks have fun while leveling. <br />
<br />
In addition to long rotations, all combat was accelerated. The global cooldowns have been reduced, many abilities are off the global cooldown. When initially you could mount up in 6 seconds, nowadays it takes 1.5 seconds. Everything in WoW has been sped up. That turned it more into a reaction game and away from a tactical game. The most important thing in combat is the action bar with its proccs. I'm a long-term computer player and especially long-term WoW player and I am often overwhelmed with all the things going on. Is that good? Is that part of easy to learn, hard to master mantra? <br />
<br />
I'd prefer a game where hard to master meant the right decision given a complex situation, to a game that requires mostly muscle memory and fast reaction times to be mastered.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(Eating, down-time, self-healing)</b></u> <br />
WoW leveling was never hard. So you usually wouldn't die if you were somewhat careful and not completely inexperienced with the user interface. However, there was still an incentive to play well: Your health/mana bar. If you let yourself hit too much or spent mana irresponsibly you would have to sit down and eat/drink more often. Now, maybe those down times were too much for nowaday's fast gaming world. But fact is that today, in the open world or dungeons, you have no incentive whatsoever to play smart. Your only incentive is to do lots and lots of dps or even AoE. Damage to your character has become irrelevant. This is also due to changes to tanks.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(Tanks)</b></u> <br />
With the introduction of dungeon-finder one problem became apparent: Shortage of tanks. Blizzard decided to increase the number of tanks no matter what. As a consequence tanks were made extremely powerful - especially during leveling. In fact, in leveling dungeons you don't really need a healer as a tank and you certainly don't need damage dealers. Even the best DDs cannot do the kind of dps a reasonably good tank does. This change increased the amount of tanks considerably, but it also made leveling even more boring. As a tank you are immortal while as a DD in a dungeon you are superfluous. And don't even ask the healer: he is usually doing something else while putting a HoT on the tank every now and then - if necessary.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(Ignoring content and a small team)</b></u> <br />
This is one of the things that I never understood. Why is Blizzard super-careful with e.g. class-specific quests because they cost a lot of development time compared to non-class specific ones, but at the same time throws away <b>all</b> the content of prior expansions, making everything irrelevant? Why? Why are they ignoring the leveling of professions completely? Why didn't they find some use of old zones and old dungeons and old raids, that many of us would like to revisit? Is a revamp of small strips of content (Onyxia, Deadmines, etc.) and elimination of the old version really the best they could do?<br />
<br />
Likewise, why did it take Blizzard 10 years to finally increase the team to a size that is proportional to the economic success of WoW? And why do they then suddenly have to increase the team by some 50% which, of course leads to delays? Blizzard should have increased the team size by some 15%-25% a year every year. They should have had special teachers for the new developers, artists and programmers. They should have drowned the community in content. They should have kept the leveling game at top quality, because that would not only have been possible given the economic success, but it had actually helped getting new players into the game much more than Ghostcrawler's nerf to super-über-easyiness combined with ignorance of those players who actually enjoyed leveling.<br />
<br />
<u><b>(The Lore)</b></u> <br />
To make it short: The lore from classic was great in that it created a diverse world with silithids, old gods, elementals, the Burning Legion, alliance races, horde races, kings and dragons.<br />
<br />
TBC and WotLK focused this lore on a few characters and the Burning Legion. The lore at this point was still fine. But it wasn't great anymore because it lacked the diversity of a fully developed world.<br />
<br />
With Cataclysm the lore was over. The ridiculous mad and evil dragon that Deathwing was, was as powerful as it was boring. Pandaria then tried to start again on a new continent. Not a great idea, but a reasonably good idea - if it hadn't been Pandaland.<br />
<br />
Now, with Warlords of Draenor and time-travel/dimension-travel lore has become absurd. Sure, I like Draenor and, yes I will play a bit there. But the lore has been mangled. Just look at the forums were players try to make sense from it. With enough assumptions, making sense of it might be possible. But the lore is not great anymore, it's confusing at best. <br />
<br />
<u><b>(Flying)</b></u> <br />
Flying finally made any landscape irrelevant. While I don't really think it destroyed open-world PvP - the PvE/PvP separation did this - flying was still a mistake because it yet again added to the de-mystification of the fantasy world, while at the same time removing the players from the world - literally. <br />
If you don't want the world to be part of the game, but only part of the background, introduce flying. Interestingly most competitors didn't add flying. And Blizzard intends to remove it with WoD. <br />
<br />
<u><b>(Warlords of Draenor)</b></u> <br />
Truth be told, I like WoD so far. It has inherited a lot of the problems introduced in earlier versions but tries to improve the game and correct a few of the mistakes I listed (e.g. Flying, super-powerful tanks, super-easy leveling starting with lvl90, boring items) - just like Mists of Pandaria did, by the way (but that had Pandas and added raid finder).<br />
Apart from the unimmersive jumping games and ridiculous treasure chests, I actually like a lot about the basic idea of the timeless isle in MoP.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the level 1-90 game is lost and Blizzard will not fix it - probably never. WoD, seen in isolation, as if it were a new game with new lore, could be interesting. I am looking forward to it.Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-79971267968451746282014-05-15T08:55:00.001+02:002014-05-15T13:09:22.466+02:00Quitting TESO, sorry<i>I won't continue to play TESO. Zenimax asked me for reasons via mail. Here they are.</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>- Multiplayer combat is not very fun. Other players move too fast / use confusing, overloaded visuals. I never know what the others are currently doing, which mob they are fighting, usually I don't even know where they are.<br />
<br />
- I get little feedback as to what I am doing. Did I hit my opponent hard? Did my heal actually make a difference? AoE heals that I cast on cooldown aren't a good system IMHO.<br />
<br />
- Single player content is fun for a while but not worth the subscription. Dungeon layouts are the same far too often (always?). <br />
<br />
- The story - especially the beginning - is ridiculous. I am the prisoner of an evil god and just walk out of his plane. Just like that. It's really anticlimatic. Gods I should face when I am level 100. Certainly not at level 1. Queens and kings should be interested in me when I am level 40, not at level 1. And so on. <br />
<br />
- Too strong incentives to explore the world, which turns the exploration into achievement hunting. Who put all those treasure chests there anyway?? And lorewise skyshards are absurd, really!Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-91949578938640744562014-04-09T09:12:00.002+02:002014-04-09T16:13:54.479+02:00Finally, The Elder Scrolls – Online<i>The first TES game I played was also the first one: Arena. I got it on 3,5'' discs from a friend on a birthday; don't know what birthday, really. Some 15 years ago. I installed it.</i> <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><b><u>(1)</u></b><br />
I started it, I remember being in some dungeon. Then I died. Somehow something had killed me. The drivers for my soundblaster must not have been properly configured. I never started it again. In retrospect, and I am not kidding, I remember it to be a great game. So much for nostalgia. <br />
<br />
Maybe my memories are mixed with my feelings concerning Daggerfall, the second TES game. I played that one a lot. To be able to climb over the city's wall as a direct consequence of the general rules of the game is something I still remember very fondly. Eventually I stranded in some labyrinth beneath Daggerfall and quit. I remember Daggerfall to be a phenomenal game.<br />
<br />
The third TES game I played was Morrowind. I remember how all the characters in this game looked completely ugly and the annoying city guards. I remember that I could teleport with the help of caravans – I really didn't like that. I remember the stupid merchant system. I remember finding really good gloves in some really hard to see spot in some dungeon and how no other character of mine could find them ever again. I remember levitating at 300% speed while blind (boots of blinding speed). I remember the dust storms. I remember never understanding the story. I remember killing almost anything in the game and being really disappointed that some characters just didn't die.<br />
<br />
My forth TES game was Oblivion. And while I played it a bit, I don't remember it a lot. What I do remember is that there were too many oblivion gates and that I, eventually, just didn't bother to close them anymore. I remember the stupid merchant system. Oh – and I remember my despair trying not to optimize the fun out of the game – it never really worked for me. Oblivion was a big trap in this regard.<br />
<br />
Just like the fifth TES game. Optimizing your fun out of the game is really a curse of the TES games. Skyrim. I didn't like that I started as a hero. I didn't like that characters were running around in snowstorms .. naked. I didn't like the stupid merchant system. Really, when it was released I wrote a review. I think it is a great game that could have been much, much better. <a href="http://nilsmmoblog.blogspot.de/2011/11/bethesda-skyrim-not-review.html">Just read my "review"</a>.<br />
<br />
<b><u>(2)</u></b><br />
And now there is TESO. And I like it. <br />
<br />
Technically it's pretty good. The graphics are really, really good – and smooth – for a MMORPG! The sound is awesome. The animations are ok. <br />
<br />
I like that there are no tier 12 vendors in the 'starting town' - at least I haven't found them yet. I love TESO's missing respect for balance that is the same as its attempt to create a world – and not just a game. Do you know why Game of Thrones is so good? Because, even though it has great characters, its focus is on the world. <br />
<br />
But what I really like is that - due to the nature of MMOs - this seems to be the first TES game where you cannot optimize the fun out of it; at least not to the extent that you could in the others.<br />
<br />
Of course, there are also things I don't like. There always are: Most importantly, the hero thing. All TES games have you start as a prisoner. The original idea behind this: You start as nobody but you can rise to greatness. Well, this idea was already ridiculed in Oblivion when the first character you got to know was the one who freed you: your king. It was even more ridiculed in Skyrim. Dragonborn – lol.<br />
<br />
And now? I start as a prisoner of an evil god, some 'prophet' thinks I'm special. So I walk straight out of the plane of the god. Yeah – right. I'm trying hard to ignore this bullshit. <br />
<br />
Now, there are a few other points. Artistically, those rifts are done really, really well. But my first rift also showed me why I loved classic WoW: static combat. My first rift was closed by maybe 10 players – they were hard to count, because it was a complete mess. I tried to heal didn't knowing whether I made any difference or none at all. My screen was a confusing mess to me. It may be too early to tell. Right now I'd say I understand why there's the four-player limit for instances. Oh yeah, instances. Well, I guess they just had to add them. - Just like teleporting. Sigh.<br />
<br />
What else? I love that some quests are too hard for you and you need to come back later. This – more than any number appearing on my screen – shows me that my character actually grows stronger. I think it's a good idea that there's no world-wide auction house. Because, Diablo. Auction houses are shortcuts that take the fun of accumulating gear out of the game and replace it with something much less fun (browsing the AH). That's why most items in WoW can't be traded in the auction house.<br />
<br />
I love that I cannot quick save and that failing always has a price – however small. Isn't it funny how some good single-player features need to be forced on the developers by the nature of MMOs? <br />
<br />
As for the experience/level/skill system I think it's quite ok. You can see the effort that went into designing this. This effort was very well spent money! Having four classes that can turn out completely different if played differently – really good. With some luck there will be so many counter-builds and counter-counter builds that TESO could be almost endlessly entertaining.<br />
<br />
What I like a lot is that I can just start walking in some direction and find something to do/explore. What I don't like all that much are skyshards; much too gamey for my taste. Moreover, if you force exploration on me it's not exploration anymore. Skyshards will probably make me look at an online map. The incentive is too strong - IMHO this is a design mistake.<br />
<br />
The background story: TESO really tries to explain it to me. But maybe it would have been smarter to have me work for it a bit more. It sometimes feels forced on me. I would have liked to explore the history of the world instead of having it frontloaded on me. Maybe it gets better later on.<br />
<br />
Choices: The first time your dialogue turns red and your mind starts going <i>"Does that really mean I have a choice?"</i>. I'm not sure how much of a difference those choices really make. But so far I love it. Especially important: Your choices don't influence your gameplay/character and thus you cannot optimize your fun out of it (take that SWTOR!).<br />
<br />
Magical items: I find some, but I'm not swamped with them. Feels good.<br />
<br />
The compass leading me to the next quest target: Yeah, well. I'd prefer good quest descriptions. But it's ok.<br />
<br />
Red markings on the ground warning me to dodge: Very gamey but the much better gameplay might actually be worth the lost immersion.<br />
<br />
The crafting – I'm not much of a crafter. But I'll try it out eventually. I heard it's pretty good.<br />
<br />
Other players: a nuisance. Is that bad? No, not really. Solving this problem would require turning TESO upside down. What I like about MMOs is the focus on the world instead of the player. I'm already used to the fact that other players are around. And maybe later I can do some socializing, maybe.<br />
<br />
The phasing: I play single-player anyway. It's ok.<br />
<br />
The PvP? Haven't done it yet. I can't imagine how it could possibly be fun as I am already confused if there's more than three players in front of me. But I'll try to be open-minded; I usually like PvP. Especially if it is linked with PvE. (Damn you WoW).<br />
<br />
Oh - one last thing I didn't like: There's corpses on the ground that obviously have armor or weapons on them and I can't take those. Was that really necessary?<br />
<br />
<b><u>(3)</u></b><br />
Concluding, there were three big problems I had with Oblivion/Skyrim:<br />
- The optimizing-my-fun-out-of-it trap.<br />
- The stupid merchant/economic system with their fixed amounts of coin.<br />
- The focus on me instead of the world.<br />
<br />
The first two problems were necessarily fixed due to TESO being an MMO. The third problem is curtailed by it. Because, however much the developers try to make me feel like I'm the greatest hero of the universe. It just doesn't work in an MMO. Thank god!<br />
<br />
<b><u>(TL;DR)</u></b><br />
I can well imagine playing this game for some time. I don't say this lightly.Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-39540092997268679372013-11-09T18:37:00.000+01:002013-11-09T18:37:06.993+01:00Warlords of Draenor<i>Just a quick note.</i> <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Since I know how important it is for all of you, I'd just like to bring out the word that the new WoW expansion has my blessings. What I like most is that I will be able to get a character to lvl90 without visiting Pandaland. Thanks Blizzard!! :)<br />
<br />
Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-53465501524289869852013-05-12T15:03:00.003+02:002013-05-12T16:11:54.070+02:00Neverwinter<i>Who wouldn't like a D&D game from a major publisher as an action RPG with WoW-like questing?</i> <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Well, I wouldn't. <br />
<br />
The core of Neverwinter (combat) is not D&D at all and the MMO part is an inferior single player game. Moreover, Neverwinter is extremely gamey: did your D&D campaigns have ever been about rewards - literally? Because Neverwinter tells me <b>literally</b> what rewards I get for doing what. Of course, the rewards have no connection to the story or what is happening whatsoever. Just like treasure chests that pop up out of nowhere and don't make sense in any way.<br />
<br />
If anything, D&D is about a credible world and a credible story in that world. It is absolutely not about rewards, flashy magic at every step or about about WoW-like questing. At the very least the rewards should not be called rewards: I like the illusion of a desireable item with a history instead of a "reward".<br />
<br />
See, it's not even necessary to talk about the microtransactions ...Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-27459970804336145522013-05-08T10:32:00.004+02:002013-05-08T10:48:09.575+02:00Why I don't play Darkfall<i>At first glance Darkfall looks like a MMO I'd be playing.</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>But there's one thing in Darkfall that so much doesn't appeal to me that it effectively prevents me from playing. The FPS aspect.<br />
<br />
And that is not because I don't like First Person Shooters. I played Halflife classic deathmatch for months on end - sometimes to the point of mental exhaustion. I remember players moaning in the chat: "shit, it's Lordfire" (my childish) name, when I entered the server. I really liked that. That period in my life ended with WoW.<br />
<br />
What doesn't work for me with Darkfall is that the FPS is integrated in a fantasy RPG. While I love classic FPS and while I love classic fantasy RPGs, I don't think they work together at all; at least not for me.<br />
In a fantasy MMO I want to play a character, in a FPS I want to kill stuff. As similar as this may be on the surface, both are completely different mindsets. The FPS is about adrenaline and killing. The fantasy RPG is about watching my character grow. It is about investing in that character more than the "instant fun" a FPS is about.<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure this distinction I make comes from growing up with fantasy RPGs like "The Black Eye" (Das Schwarze Auge), "Amberstar", "Planescape: Torment" or "Ravenloft". These were slow tactical fantasy RPGs. And I just don't feel like they mix well with a FPS. It's like <a href="http://syncaine.com/2013/05/07/dfuw-distilled-core/#comment-114816">Sid6.7 wrote at Syncaine's</a>: <br />
<br />
<i><blockquote>"they think of it as an MMO first. It’s better to think of it as an FPS that evolved into an MMO. That’s closer to the truth of it."</blockquote></i><br />
<br />
TL;DR: Imagining Doom players jumping around in a fantasy RPG, to me, feels like eating a piece of chocolate hidden inside a Pepper Steak.Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-38040384651321648892013-05-02T11:03:00.002+02:002013-05-02T11:06:23.346+02:00I just backed Camelot UnchainedAnd so should <a href="http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/13861848/camelot-unchained">you</a> ;)Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-58416247387598491262013-04-23T12:55:00.000+02:002013-04-23T12:57:20.500+02:00Low-level BGs<i>I’m currently playing warlock BG-PvP at level 40 in WoW. And I love it.</i> <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>And that’s a surprise because these BGs are terribly unbalanced – and certainly not in favor of warlocks. My warlock has about 4k life right now. Def-warriors do up to 3800 crit-hits on players(!) with their shields! While my soulfire, a 4 second cast during which I need to stand still - does about 500 if I am lucky.<br />
<br />
At the same time warriors have significant self healing and easily 5k health - I have seen some with 7k+. A warrior is – without superstition – a boss monster. And I love fighting them. Of course I can’t do this on my own. I need other players to help. Unless the warrior charges me and one-hits me, which does happen, I can help my team by chain-fearing, demon-stunning or death-coiling him when I feel that other players (especially my team’s warriors) are ready for their burst.<br />
And it’s a massive amount of fun – for me – and, actually, also for the warriors, I am sure! <br />
<br />
<b>My first point:</b> Forget balancing in PvP. Unless one class starts to be played by a majority of the players it’s just not a problem for the game because PvP can still be lots of fun.<br />
<br />
<b>My second point:</b> Don’t give players so many abilities. I love playing level 25-45 BGs in WoW because you have lots of time to observe the battle and don’t have to look at your UI all the time. And the tactics of the battle provide so many interesting decisions that I almost never become bored.<br />
<br />
<b>My third point:</b> Don’t professionalize PvP! Once again <a href="http://www.keenandgraev.com/2013/04/20/emphasize-community-content">I agree with Keen</a>. I’m not a fan of rated BGs because they are too .. boring. While I absolutely love meeting players again – which does happen in low-level PvP in WoW! – I don’t want to play professionally. <br />
<br />
I also enjoy playing Badminton for many years by now. On several occasions I have been asked to join a team. I did this once but quit soon after. Some things are best enjoyed as an amateur even if you spend many, many hours playing. Improving when you feel like it, is sometimes more fun than the pressure to be as competitive as possible. <br />
<br />
And, more importantly, very few games have the strategic depth to be lots of fun after min-maxing. But often this isn't a problem unless the developers make it one by pushing the players towards professionalism.Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-24827901561449798772013-04-19T13:59:00.002+02:002013-04-19T14:07:28.569+02:00Three Types of Games<i>There are three types of games.</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><b>First:</b> Players create avatars in a virtual world. These avatars compete against each other (levels, equipment).<br />
<br />
<b>Second:</b> Players improve their skills while playing the game (chess, first person shooters, soccer). They compete directly against each other.<br />
<br />
<b>Third:</b> Players spend money while playing. He who spends most wins.<br />
<br />
Question: what kind of game do you like most? <br />
Fake question: what kind of game do you like least? ;)<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">PS: When I say "compete" I also mean the competition for prestige inside a team. This doesn't necessarily mean PvP.</span>Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-87406181357859058192013-04-12T09:39:00.000+02:002013-04-12T09:42:34.159+02:00Imagine<i>MMOGypsy, alias Syl, has a detailed and beautiful post about why <a href="http://mmogypsy.com/2013/04/why-storytelling-in-mmorpgs-is-overrated.html">"Storytelling in MMORPGs is overrated."</a></i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Ignoring some confusion about lore, story, story telling and narrative, I completely agree with her. Actually, only a very few people disagree, which is a somehow remarkable fact. Now, what would be a good example MMORPG?<br />
<br />
<b><i>(1)</i></b><br />
Imagine, a pure PvE MMORPG. You kill monsters / steal treasures in dark caverns, cut wood, etc. to build houses. You have an incentive to build houses next to others players’ houses. At the same time, from the North Undead attack the land. <br />
<br />
Naturally, where they come from, the best treasure can be acquired. The Undead are controlled by a rudimentary AI occasionally supported by an employee of the game developer.<br />
<br />
The Undead need to be fought back, they sometimes attack in waves, they attack villages and destroy houses, some kinds of Undead even loot houses. The game at this point doesn't have an end. It is an endless struggle trying to find the best treasure in the most dangerous places to build the most prestigious home/village and to fight off the Undead in a concerted effort with other players. You don’t need many scripted boss fights for this. If the Undead attack your village they do this in waves and they might attack from different directions. They focus different players or try to burn down specific houses.<br />
<br />
Now, add some minor struggles to this world (giant termites in some local wood, dangerous trolls in some mountains to the south, a magic race of fee in the west (nobody who ventures there returns), a terribly hot desert, inhabited by strange desert folk, to the East, a dangerous underground labyrinth that connects far-away places in a confusing magical way.<br />
<br />
Use a death penalty that prevents players from getting from A to B by dying often enough …<br />
<br />
<b><i>(2)</i></b><br />
This game could easily be made a reality using any modern MMORPG engine. It would tell a never-ending story. And you don’t even need PvP. It would still be a very fun game with lots and lots of player-generated content. <br />
<br />
The point is: The story in this game is not told, it is experienced.<br />
Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-2637367605838147472013-04-09T10:35:00.002+02:002013-04-09T11:07:01.432+02:00Is F2P is mandatory now?<i>MMORPGs are not competitive at fun consumption.</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><i><b>(1)</b></i><br />
Last week I wrote that MMORPGs must require a lot of time to be played because the basic content of a MMORPG is necessarily cheap and repetitive. This is the advantage of the genre (high profit) but it is also what makes it difficult to create a good game. Developers need to make players play for a long time so that they feel like they invest and don’t just consume because MMORPGs are not competitive at fun consumption.<br />
<br />
This is a defining difference between most games and MMORPGs. In most games players only consume; things are instantly fun: for example, a polished shooting of birds. But in a MMORPG players ultimately invest most of the time. They must, because only the investment-experience can help make a MMORPG more fun than a typical story-driven shooter.<br />
This is also the reason why MMORPGs tend to be a hit-or-miss project. If the game –somehow- manages to make players play a lot, this leads to players playing for months and years. But if the game doesn't succeed at making payers play a lot, players will soon find the MMORPG meaningless, superfluous, grind-like, etc.<br />
(This discovery lead to daily quests etc. Even though we all know how many disadvantages those have).<br />
<br />
<i><b>(2)</b></i><br />
Now, unfortunately, if your game requires a lot of time you automatically end up targeting younger folks (10-28) more than people at the age 29-55. And for younger folks money always is an issue. Back in 2000 there weren't many alternatives. If you wanted to play a fantasy MMORPG you had to pay a subscription. But this has changed dramatically. Nowadays players can choose between many, many free2play fantasy 'MMORPGs'. This poses a particular problem if you dislike f2p games as a developer: if you start with a subscription your game might never ever actually get enough players to become sufficiently popular. <br />
<br />
So, is f2p mandatory now? <br />
<br />
<i><b>(3)</b></i><br />
There are three strategies. The first is to give up and make the game f2p with item shops and lots of ads. We know that we can make some money this way. We also know that this game is not going to make anybody rich. Since most players never pay, you need to ask a lot of money from those few who do. This means that most players will hit a pay-barrier just when they wanted to spend a lot of time playing the game. Consequently they won’t play a lot and never start to enjoy the investment process. They will soon find the game meaningless, grind-like and, of course, unfair and expensive. <br />
<br />
The second strategy is a compromise. The game is easy to try, but eventually ends in a subscription. Maybe, in the beginning, you ask for the credit card info but charge only 1€. A resub then costs 5€, and subsequent resubs 10€ - or whatever amount you think you can ask.<br />
<br />
The third strategy is this: You ask an unusually high initial price for the game. For example $95. This includes free play for one month. Now, this seems pretty counter-intuitive. But it can actually work if the game is of sufficient high quality. While younger people always have little money, they usually have enough money to pay this price. The question is not one of ability (they already bought a computer..), but of will. <br />
<br />
By asking a surprisingly high price your game does look interesting. Just like caviar looks more interesting, not even though, but <b>because</b> it is expensive. Game magazines will have a special look at a game company that shows off so much self-confidence. The risk here is that your game could become known as a scam if its quality is not high enough. <br />
<br />
This strategy prevents you from using any kind of apology, like <i>"we didn't expect so many players playing our game"</i> (and all the other non-sense), as players now have the very good argument that the game is expensive enough and should offer superior service. <br />
<br />
However, if you think that you do offer a superior product, asking a surprisingly high price will not only increase your revenue, but actually even help you sell <b>more</b> copies. Prices aren't just prices, but also a message.Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-42612395425658671842013-04-05T10:12:00.003+02:002013-04-05T10:12:43.863+02:00New MMORPG Blogs<i>Please help me add good MMORPG blogs to the link list.</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The reason about 300 people visit this blog each day are the links. Sure, I also write a good post occasionally, but for one year now I have not been writing all that much. Still, the number of visitors stays mostly the same. This wasn't exactly planned on my part, but it is very fortunate as it allows me to write a post whenever I want and be sure that the blog is still visited by enough people to read the post.<br />
<br />
Of course, not having been very active for a year means that the links aren't up to date. There are probably several good blogs out there that I don't know at the moment. So, please help me add good MMORPG blogs to the link list. Just paste any link you like in a comment. <br />
<br />
Thanks!Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-24494577985823318672013-04-04T15:22:00.001+02:002013-04-05T08:10:20.602+02:00The Nature of MMORPGs<i>MMORPGs are declining. This is a rather obvious fact. </i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><i><b>(1)</b></i><br />
Five years ago I was convinced that MMORPGs would grow exponentially for a long time to come. Today, I have been proven wrong. Many people argue that the market is contracting until it somehow reaches its 'natural' size - 'natural' being anything before World of Warcraft. But I don't believe in perfect storms of that size.<br />
<br />
While WoW profited from the pre-tablet area, from existing lore and previous successful games, from enough similarity to Everquest, and from fast internet in many homes, it also did many things right. And if you do these many things right again, while remembering the differences between 2005 and 201x, you can repeat WoW's success.<br />
<br />
Still, there is one problem today that needs to be answered before you can design a new MMORPG: What is the target audience? Ideally, the answer to that question would be everybody. But that is very difficult for one single reason:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.keenandgraev.com/2013/04/02/mmos-feel-like-investment">Keen</a> is <a href="http://www.keenandgraev.com/2013/04/03/mmos-counter-revolution">right</a>. <br />
<br />
<i><b>(2)</b></i><br />
MMORPGs work because they feel like an investment. And they cannot feel like an investment if you play them like a Facebook game on your mobile. The reason people like to kill 25 pigs for a tiny reward (I once spent tens of hours for gloves with +1% crit chance) is <b>because the more time you spend doing something the more important it becomes to you. And the more important something is, the more fun it is to do; especially if it means meeting the same people again every day.</b><br />
<br />
Think about waking up in the morning and nothing special happening this day; just your normal job. In the afternoon you go home and are free to do what you want - until then, just the normal, completely predictable job. 90% of humanity like this idea. I know, you might belong to the 10% who hate it. In that case (you are either lying to yourself) or you have been a guild leader before. That's ok. There's room for you in MMORPGs – if there are enough people to be lead. <br />
<br />
Most people, however, like to do something boring to achieve a long-term goal. It makes them feel good. It gives them a purpose. It is the reason people have 40-hour jobs and get kids.<br />
<br />
<i><b>(3)</b></i><br />
What is your target audience? Do they have a lot of time or just 30 minutes every few days?<br />
<br />
If it is the latter: forget trying to design a MMORPG for them. When Blizzard realized that their population got older, got jobs, got families, they tried to cater to these players: The brightest people in the industry have tried to transform WoW into a game that can be played 30 minutes every few days. They started from a point that any other developer can only dream of (10mio socially connected players). They managed to keep WoW from contracting for two years. (Compare that to Eve Online!)<br />
<br />
Lessons learnt for a new MMORPG: Don't design a game that tries to out-WoW WoW. Don't target WoW players. Don't target 40 year olds. Yes, I know they have a lot of money. <b>But they don't have enough time to really switch games.</b> <br />
<br />
<i><b>(4)</b></i><br />
There is exactly one target audience that you can target: People with lots of free time. They are the <u>only</u> ones who will ever kill 25 pigs for next to nothing. Because killing 25 virtual pigs is only fun if you have lots of free time! People who don't have lots of free time won't ever kill those pigs no matter how much you polish the killing – no matter how much you streamline the questing – no matter that they don't need to use a sword, but kill the pigs by throwing graphically superior über-cool bombs from the back of a fiery dragon. No matter that their balanced numbers increase by 13% instead of 3%. It doesn't matter, because there are much, much, much better things to do if you have only 30 minutes of free time!<br />
<br />
You cannot make a better WoW by making it more like a single-player game, because the massive, and the online, make any MMORPG inferior to a virtual story, like Mass Effect. The only thing that a MMORPG has and that Mass Effect doesn't have is this: the MMORPG can be played for a long time. It achieves this by connecting a <b>massive</b> amount of players <b>online</b>. And it doesn't just connect friends and guilds. Rather, it connects hundreds of strangers who, even though they are not friends, become <b>familiar</b>. <br />
<br />
Generally, you cannot make a massive online game that requires its players to be online only for 30 minutes every few days - unless you want the game to be played on mobiles. And that's not a MMORPG, in my book. It certainly isn't as profitable as a good MMORPG!<br />
<br />
<i><b>(5)</b></i><br />
So, what is the target audience? A new MMORPG has to target people at the age 10-28. These are the people with lots of free time. Ten years forward, you can also try to target the 50+ crowd. But not today.<br />
<br />
How do you target them? By designing not a game, but a world where each single player meets the same 100-300 strangers again, and again, and again.<br />
<br />
Why did MMORPGS decline? Because WoW-competitors targeted the WoW audience, who had ever less time. A new MMORPG <b>must</b> target the young - or fail.<br />
<br />
<i><b>TL;DR</b></i><br />
The more time you spend doing something the more important it becomes to you. And the more important something is, the more fun it is to do; especially if it means meeting the same people again every day.<br />
<br />
This is the Nature of MMORPGs.<br />
<br />
---<br />
PS: I am not your target audience.Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-10708438522587130412013-03-27T11:06:00.001+01:002013-03-27T15:43:23.621+01:00World of Warcraft ..<i>I subscribed to WoW for a month.</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>But first some blog management. I published several comments which where automatically blocked because the post they commented on was a month old or older. Sorry for the delay.<br />
<br />
Now, on WoW. Why did I pay for a month? Because I am curious and because I have some spare time. And because, well, <i>"Because WoW is what I did when I was young (=studying, not working) and thus playing WoW makes me feel young .."</i> And because I don't have the nerves (time) to get into another MMO to a point that I feel that I can enjoy it.<br />
<br />
This is also where my usual criticism starts: Is that really WoW?<br />
<br />
Compared to the pre-Pandaria WoW that I knew, this seems to be a 50% new game. Now, fortunately I have some time and felt like it, because initially there was a good chance that 50% was just too much.<br />
<br />
<b>The style</b> .. the style. I dislike Pandas. I dislike Pandaria !! I just don't understand what they where thinking - but then, I didn't understand what Blizzard was thinking for a long time already. Adding Pandas is one thing, but to create an expansion where Pandas and Panda lore hits you at every step is just ridiculous.<br />
<br />
Now, on to more interesting stuff: The transition towards meta gaming continues. In the beginning we had 'strength' and 'stamina', nowadays we have 'pvp power'. Soon Blizzard will tell us that 'strength' was too hard to understand for new players and they now call it 'dps stat'. (Which is, of course, not catering to new players, but catering to the hardcore..)<br />
<br />
By the way, one thing I actually liked in Pandaria was the mob variety. Leveling up 85-90 was at times enjoyable: there were two differently powerful mobs to overcome, so I didn't always have to mash the same two buttons. Some short cooldowns (like frostnova) are only available every second or third mob: This requires some flexibility on my part; very good. What would be even better would be more than two kinds of mobs at each level and maybe even randomized HP numbers. I feel like in a bad movie when every lvl90 creature has exactly the same number of hit points. This is especially a problem because I can see the exact number of hit points.<br />
<br />
What was also ok was the difficulty. If I added more than one mob I had to be careful and if I added three or more the situation was potentially dangerous. Only that it wasn't because, my mage has a quadrillion ways to escape, including vanish (improved invisibility) on a short cooldown. Anyway, it was much more enjoyable than leveling 1-80 in the open world (I queued that in the dungeon finder. The open world is unbearable unless you like one-hitting mobs and canceling quest lines).<br />
<br />
In the past, what I usually did when I played WoW was BGs and farming. Since farming was mostly made meaningless many expansions ago, BGs it was. And BGs aren't all that much fun right now, I think. There are several reasons. First, all characters have too much crowd control. Second, I am seriously underequipped which is a massive problem for a mage unless you're extremely well skilled - which I am not .. anymore :)<br />
The problem here, by the way, is not that I die fast; that's ok, I also respawn fast. The problem is that the people I shoot at don't care ...<br />
<br />
My by far biggest problem, however, is that everything is just too fast. I miss classic WoW with my mage. Even though I sometimes died in a few global cool downs, the action itself was way slower. My fireballs took 3 seconds or even 3.5s. I could watch the battle while I played. I even read the numbers that my fireballs produced on my screen (good feedback=fun)! And when a fireball hit it meant something.<br />
Now I have to watch my hotbars .. and, yes, I know, it does take more skill, and, yes it might fit the 'easy to learn, hard to master' idea. But it's just not as much fun in my opinion. Or, to put it differently, I don't think I will ever master playing a mage in lvl90 PvP.<br />
<br />
Maybe this is just the result of me being out of shape, but I remember thinking the same thing when Cataclysm hit. And I found the level 20-40 BGs with that mage actually more fun! Even though they are totally unbalanced!<br />
<br />
Oh, I tried to explain how to play my lvl90 mage to my girlfriend (who has almost no PC gaming background) .. it was hopeless. The amount of skills to explain was just too much. It took too long.<br />
<br />
What else.. mmh .. scenarios, well those where I can just kill stuff using my character's abilities: fun, but a bit too short and superfluous, I can just as well do quests, can I not? Those where I have to do anything with beer: silly, hilarious, boring. Generally: I have not the slightest idea about the lore. This makes everything a bit .. hollow.<br />
<br />
So, apart from the style (Pandas!) which I abhor, my main problem with WoW right now is that it is too fast in BG PvP, too many numbers on my screen all the time, too much CC, too many relevant abilities, too much meta gaming.<br />
<br />
My diagnosis: WoW is still well on it's way towards becoming even more meta, faster, and hardcore. I think I'll have some fun in the coming days (there's little Pandaria in most BGs and I want to test the raid finder) but, right now, I don't think I will stay.Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-60049351173357015132012-11-25T21:58:00.000+01:002012-11-25T22:37:55.378+01:00If money doesn't make you happy ..<i>.. then you probably aren't spending it right.</i> <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><blockquote><i>[..] Why don't a whole lot more money make us a whole lot more happy? One answer to this question is that the things that bring happiness simply aren't for sale. This sentiment is lovely, popular, and almost certainly wrong. [..]</blockquote></i><br />
<a href="http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~dtg/DUNN%20GILBERT%20&%20WILSON%20(2011).pdf">Link</a><br />
<br />
---<br />
My unrelated favorite quote in this article:<br />
<i><blockquote>Human beings are the most social animal on our planet. Only three other animals (termites, eusocial insects, and naked mole rats) construct social networks as complex as ours [..]</blockquote></i>Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-12317197021187986632012-11-19T18:31:00.002+01:002012-11-19T22:10:16.093+01:00Unpredictability<i>There is a great article on unpredictability <a href="http://sinisterdesign.net/?p=1647">over here</a>. This is my opinion on the matter.</i> <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>It is important to understand the difference between random numbers in the game mechanics and unpredictability. The difference is: random numbers in the game mechanics are a <b>tool</b> to create unpredictability - but they are not the only tool. Unpredictability can come from various sources.<br />
<br />
For example, in a WoW boss fight, you never know whether Bob manages to get out of the fire in time. And this is also true if Bob is not a bot, who depends on random numbers, but if Bob is human.<br />
In fact, you don't even need Bob to have unpredictability. If you don't know whether you yourself will be able to get out of the fire in time, there's also unpredictability and thus tension. If you knew <b>exactly</b> what is going to happen, WoW – or any game- wouldn't be fun at all.<br />
<br />
Consequently, the interesting question really is not whether games should be unpredictable – they need to be. The important question rather is where the unpredictability comes from (and how much you need).<br />
<br />
The problem with random numbers in the game mechanics as a way to create unpredictability is that humans tend to question why things happen – especially why bad things happen. One way to stop players from asking this is immersion. As long as the player is immersed in the simulation part of the game, everything's fine. His soldiers miss, they die, he may even lose the game. Maybe he had never had a chance due to a bad random seed. Maybe he played too risky. It doesn't matter because he enjoys being the commander of a squad and <b>accepts</b> that bad things can happen in the field. That's the way it is in real life. No military plan survives the first contact with the enemy. The trick of being a good commander is not making a plan that works if everything happens as planned, but to make a plan that works even if everything goes wrong - while also taking advantage if some things don't go wrong or even work out exceptionally well.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, if the player is not immersed in the simulation and only concentrates on winning the abstract game, randomness in the game mechanics can be very unfun. When playing a game like X-Com, many players don't usually think about what would happen if the 80% shot misses. Instead, they assume that everything probable works and if it doesn't they reload. As a consequence they miss a great simulation that actually has some tension and climaxes - and not just a straight way to victory (what most computer games tend to be). By accepting defeat the gameplay mechanics can actually create a story that is fun to be experience. <br />
<br />
For example, yesterday I continued my UFO ironman-classic game. I had a mission where my five soldiers suddenly faced about 8 enemies. The problem was that my two snipers missed five shots in a row – each of them having 70%+ probability of hitting. I ended up fleeing the battlefield with only one sniper alive.<br />
On the next mission I had only one sniper and 4 rookies. Due to bad luck and reckless tactics the four rookies died very soon, too, but this time I decided to fight it out and miraculously the sniper, who had just fled the last mission started to hit with every shot while also managing to not be hit by the enemies. A few turns later he had eliminated every enemy on his own. Randomness cuts both ways. In this case it created a memorable story– usually a good criterion for how much fun a game is.<br />
<br />
Thus, my preliminary conclusion is: random numbers in the gameplay mechanics are a viable tool to create unpredictability if the player accepts them. One way to make him accept them is to immerse him in a simulation. By immersing a player into a simulation you can also make him accept defeat (bad random numbers) and accepting defeat is essential if you want your gameplay mechanics to create an interesting story.<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, most hardcore players and game developers don't care about immersion and gameplay mechanics that create a story, and rather turn their game into a bad movie with funny abstract minigames between the cut scenes. For those games, randomness in the game mechanics can be terrible. Players automatically reload any 80%+ shot that didn't hit and try again. If they cannot reload they blame the random numbers, instead of themselves for not having had a plan B.<br />
<br />
To circumvent this problem in games, the randomness can be removed from the game mechanics and be hidden where it is more acceptable: inside the opponent. The gameplay then only serves to multiply the existing randomness into a myriad of possible and reasonable options which result in unpredictability.<br />
Chess does it this way and, to a degree, Counter Strike does. The gigantic number of possible and reasonable actions at every point in time, in combination with the randomness in the opponent's head, create a near infinite number of games. Thus, chess or Counter Strike are unpredictable, even though there is no (or little) randomness in the gameplay mechanics. <br />
<br />
The point is: randomness in your opponent's head – or even his skill/execution - is acceptable: After having died in Counter Strike, you could say that what you did would have made you win 90% of the time, because your opponent doesn't usually hit your head at 200 meters with a pistol. But while lucky opponents might be annoying they are always acceptable (“He's just good”). If the randomness had been hidden in the gameplay mechanics (your opponent shoots, the computer throws dice to determine whether it hits your head) it had been much less acceptable.<br />
<br />
Funnily, chess computers use random numbers to be unpredictable, but since they are supposed to emulate humans it feels perfectly acceptable to lose to them. The player differentiates between the opponent and the gameplay, and when facing a chess computer they differentiate between the game mechanics and the AI opponent.<br />
<br />
Could X-COM be turned into a game without random numbers in the mechanics? Of course it could. You could make all soldiers always miss if the enemy is fully behind a wall, you could make them always hit if the enemy is protected partly by a wall and you could make them always do criticals if they flank the enemy. You could remove all random numbers from the game mechanics and instead put them into the way the computer enemy acts. This might still be a very interesting game. <br />
(Interestingly, the developers have removed randomness from the enemy's actions when compared to old games: enemies now spawn in groups at pretty predictable locations. Not a good design decision, in my opinion.)<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
Developers often put the randomness in the gameplay mechanics and not in the opponent for two reasons. First, it is often the easier way to make the game unpredictable enough to be fun. And second, from a simulation point of view it simply doesn't make sense that you, as the commander, know whether your soldiers will hit.<br />
<br />
The rule of thumb for the developers is this: if you put randomness into the game mechanics, make it acceptable by emphasizing the simulation aspect of the game. If your game does not put a strong emphasis on the simulation try to hide the randomness inside the opponents' actions. <br />
Alternatively, sell your game as gambling (annoying as hell but still fun because the players <b>accept</b> the randomness as central to the game.)Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-15000855828260119072012-11-16T13:59:00.001+01:002012-11-16T14:01:10.360+01:00X-Com: Enemy Unknown<i>Late first opinion</i> <br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>For the last two weeks I have tried to play X-Com. Unfortunately, for societal reasons, I didn't have much time because I needed to earn lots of money and spend it on things I don't need – both activities cost lots of time. Anyway, here's my opinion on X-Com: <b>It's fantastic but could be better.</b> <br />
<br />
From the second I started it, I had more fun with this game than with any game in the last few years. This includes games like Skyrim and certainly all MMOs. It's simply the best game I have played for a very, very long time.<br />
<br />
Now, of course, there're always things I don't like. <br />
- Why can I send only one fighter to catch a UFO even though I have a few available? At the very least the game should offer a credible explanation. <br />
<br />
- The camera is buggy, you often shoot through solid walls. Even more annoying are graphics when inside complex structures, like UFOs. I hope the developers are going to polish this part of the game.<br />
<br />
- Why don't aliens do anything until I have seen them in tactical combat?<br />
<br />
- Why do I have endless amounts of time to stop the aliens in the strategic game? <br />
<br />
- Why can't my missed bullets hit random stuff / civilians / other aliens / other soldiers?<br />
<br />
- Why can't I order my soldiers to destroy walls with my weapons? <br />
<br />
- Why do aliens always move first (but never shoot) when I first see them? <br />
<br />
- Why can't I pick up stuff from the ground / other soldiers?<br />
<br />
- Why are maps – and even alien starting positions - pre-scripted and not randomly generated? <br />
<br />
- Why can't I send two teams out simultaneously? <br />
<br />
- Why don't aliens ever attack my base? <br />
<br />
- Why can't my soldiers crouch? <br />
<br />
- Why can I determine how my soldiers look? <br />
<br />
- Who invented the console and ruined PC user interfaces?<br />
<br />
Generally, the game is just too much like a scripted movie and not really a simulation. And while this is great for the first hour, it's terrible later on. First it hurts immersion, and second it hurts replay value. For now I have stopped my first game and restarted on a higher difficulty/ironman so that I won't have to listen to a known story to be able to play the game.<br />
<br />
Final complaint: the acting of the council is extremely childish. Instead of supporting me to save their skins they now ‘reward' me. Dear developers, please, if you make a game for adults, can you please also treat us like adults? Most of us have a basic understanding of international politics and can imagine humankind's reaction to an alien invasion. And those who don't might still enjoy a game that treats them as if they were grown up.<br />
<br />
Oh, one thing I really did like: The first mission plays in Hamburg. Not New York, not Washington, not Oklahoma. And my translator soldier in the tutorial even speaks (broken) German. Even the police cars are German cars (Polizei). In later games I can even have my mainbase in any part of the world and not just in the US. <br />
<br />
X-Com is also important for two simple reasons: First, it shows that nostalgia or not: Remaking great old games works because many great old games were simply good and people like to play them today if you polish the graphics and UI. And second, not every game has to be real time. Turn-based combat is not inherently inferior, and rather makes for a different type of game. <br />
<br />
What would you actually think about turn based combat in a MMO? And, an even more interesting question: can X-COM be turned into a MMO (not MMORPG, but MMO)? Could the aliens be controlled by players?Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7801344413612447717.post-12616251856663356262012-11-09T15:39:00.000+01:002012-11-09T17:21:06.977+01:00Little bit on Politics<i>If Obama had been elected by Germans he had scored a 'socialist'-like 95% result.</i><br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>This is because he is a socialist, of course. And because his opponent was one of the most ridiculous candidates I can even imagine. Even his own party is very happy right now that they can finally stop pretending to like him (let alone pretending to know what he actually wanted to do with his presidency).<br />
<br />
Of course, the US are doomed now. Soon the government will not only have the right to put you into prison because you might be a terrorist, but they will now take your money, too!<br />
<br />
As for MMOs, I might be forced into WoW again. As a level 20 warrior who does quests (at least I'm human!). She thinks it's boring, but still wants to play it (even after I've shown her the <a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xecpoi_south-park-world-of-warcraft-full-e_fun">South Park episode</a>). Obviously, Blizzard did something right .. I just don't know what !?<br />
<br />
PS: If you want to read a strong German opinion on the state of the US, have fun: <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/divided-states-of-america-notes-on-the-decline-of-a-great-nation-a-865295.html">"Divided States of America - Notes on the Decline of a Great Nation"</a>. <br />
I think it's similar to all the US articles on the decline of Europe ;).Nilshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468755466492675831noreply@blogger.com5