WAR - another newsletter - more RvR, less sport PvP

[Kail]

Anyway, i hope i got my point across, and i did use AOC, but only as a recent example, this can be applied to any game, so try not to focus on AOC in replays, as that kind of misses my point.I could have easily used LOTRO, Or even something as simple as "Elves".

Everyone knows what an elf is, diverge from that, and your fucked....... or so it seems.

I guess people like to feel knowledgeable about something, and if they find out its different, then it sucks because they cant "already know" how to play.

Well, that's the whole point of using a fantasy setting, though: I already know what Elves and Orcs and Ochre Jellies are.  If you want to do a game where your badass race of burly, muscular, unshaven warriors are called "Elves," you can't complain about people whining about how your Elves are different; you intentionally created that parallel when you named them.  The benefit of doing something as a fantasy game is that you don't have to have page after page of backstory explaining who the fuck the Oompa-Loompas are and why they're at war with the Donglefobs and hate technology but love sailing and so on and so on.  People already know the basics of Dwarves and Knights and so on.  If your fantasy MMO setting has elves and wizards and stuff AND ALSO requires you to read pages of background about why your Elves aren't like traditional elves, then that tells me that A: You're an unoriginal designer who thinks that putting a new twist on something somehow equates to writing something that's actually original, and B: You're not likely to have admitted this to yourself, which means I can expect more of the same.

When your game is a 75% clone of WoW (which itself is not exactly breaking a lot of new ground), then you have only yourself to blame when people start carping about why the other 25% isn't as good as WoW.  After all, you are, by a bizarre coincidence, going to be appealing to an audience comprised largely of people who have played WoW.  If you want to do something completely original and groundbreaking, that's awesome (provided it, y'know, works), but if the pitch for this original and groundbreaking game begins with the words "It's basically a fantasy setting, except..." then I reserve the right to vigorously roll my eyes at you.

[Venkman]

poned 

[Lantyssa]

If you're putting a twist on something familiar, which means it needs story to explain it, then why not make a new name for them instead of calling them 'elves'?  Otherwise, why bother differentiating them at all?

[Kirth]

"It's basically a fantasy setting, except..."

Didn't they use the same line at the presentation by 38 studios at the ny comic con

[UnSub]

It's obvious there is nothing to talk about regarding WAR given how far off topic we've wandered.

... but on the above note, there are really on 'fantasy' and 'sci-fi' (and 'modern', perhaps) as broad genres to set games. By "It's basically a fantasy setting, except ..." the speaker really means "It's a European medieval fantasy setting as accepted in Western society which means it is heavily influenced by Tolkien, except ...". There are plenty of free MMOs that use Chinese fantasy as their setting (be it the Romance of the Three Kingdoms or Chinese folklore) and I could get excited about a GOOD MMO that used a Japanese medieval fantasy setting.

Or a modern setting. More MMOs should be set in the modern era, with dashes of sci-fi / fantasy to add to the escapism.

But, to agree with Bloodworth, most players don't want revolution, they want evolution, often of very specific systems e.g. PvP, crafting, in-game economy.

[HRose]

Nope, players want risk, and game companies don't for obvious reasons.

Revolution is good if the game is also really good. The problem is that it's easier to make a good game by just copying what already works.

[Ratman_tf]

"It's basically a fantasy setting, except..."

Why am I reminded of Ascheron's Call?  

[tmp]

Nope, players want risk, and game companies don't for obvious reasons.

Is this why the most wildly popular 'regular' MMO out there is a 'classic' DIKU with cookie cutter races and classes, just extra coat of polish? What risk exactly all these players are finding in it?

[schild]

Nope, players want risk, and game companies don't for obvious reasons.

Is this why the most wildly popular 'regular' MMO out there is a 'classic' DIKU with cookie cutter races and classes, just extra coat of polish? What risk exactly all these players are finding in it?

Don't respond to him, he's just crazy and lives on another fucking planet.

[murdoc]

Well, that's the whole point of using a fantasy setting, though: I already know what Elves and Orcs and Ochre Jellies are.  If you want to do a game where your badass race of burly, muscular, unshaven warriors are called "Elves," you can't complain about people whining about how your Elves are different; you intentionally created that parallel when you named them.  The benefit of doing something as a fantasy game is that you don't have to have page after page of backstory explaining who the fuck the Oompa-Loompas are and why they're at war with the Donglefobs and hate technology but love sailing and so on and so on.  People already know the basics of Dwarves and Knights and so on.  If your fantasy MMO setting has elves and wizards and stuff AND ALSO requires you to read pages of background about why your Elves aren't like traditional elves, then that tells me that A: You're an unoriginal designer who thinks that putting a new twist on something somehow equates to writing something that's actually original, and B: You're not likely to have admitted this to yourself, which means I can expect more of the same.

Not really related, but when I was trying, unsuccessfully, to get my wife to play DAoC, I thought she might like to be in Hibernia, so I told her that she could make an elf character. Unfortunately, her version of an elf was the one that helps Santa make toys in the North Pole and thought that would be the most ridiculous thing ever. It went downhill from there, really.

[Mrbloodworth]

You guys are focusing on the elf thing, it was only one example. Again, what i was talking about could be things like, the quest window, the trade window.. The way  NPC dialog is handled, How "Trait" points are granted, the currency conversion ETC.. Elves wasn't really my point.

Not really related, but when I was trying, unsuccessfully, to get my wife to play DAoC, I thought she might like to be in Hibernia, so I told her that she could make an elf character. Unfortunately, her version of an elf was the one that helps Santa make toys in the North Pole and thought that would be the most ridiculous thing ever. It went downhill from there, really.

that kinda goes with what my point was. She wanted to use her already existing knowledge, but the idea/experience was tainted because he knowledge was incorrect or did not apply.Carrying preconceived, comfortable notions to a new experience, creating frustration.

I guess another example i could give is this: Hot bars in Wow, VS the directional and combos of AOC. People will be faced with a learning curve with this UI element, and a lot (as is with many people using a program for the first time, that is equivalent to a program they once had, we can compare photoshop and GIMP here if you like) will simply wright it off in frustration.

Going back to what i was saying, a good portion of MMO players do not want something new.

Another i can through out is Mages VS Loaremaster. The Orcs of Wow VS the Orcs of Tolkens LOTR. ETC.. But really it can be applied to many many different aspects.

[Venkman]

You guys are focusing on the elf thing, it was only one example. Again, what i was talking about could be things like, the quest window, the trade window.. The way NPC dialog is handled, How "Trait" points are granted, the currency conversion ETC.. Elves wasn't really my point.

No, but I need to remind you of what was said earlier. This is about knowing not just what is, but why it is.

This whole genre, including all elements within, is evolutionary. There's no real clear invention of anything, just end results of player behavior and innovative execution. For example:

• UO didn't really have zone-wide and server wide chat. My first exposure to that came with EQ1. Other games may have had that.
• What quest window? I think the first time I ever saw an actual quest log that was updated in real time was AO, which followed in later expansion packs for EQ1.
• Oh, and those clear indications of which NPCs have quests and which don't? And which are vendors? Oh, and which are attackable and what are your chances against them? None of that noted via text in UO. You took your chances and ran upon failure.
  
• Again on quests, before there was an Accept/Decline button, there was the need to read key words from NPC text to decode the reply you needed to give them to initiate the text. One of DAoC's improvements was to make that word clickable so you didn't need to guess. Later EQ1 expansions added clear highlighting of the word, but you still typed it.
• First time I saw Trait Points was with Alternate Advancement XP gains at the level cap in some earlier time of EQ1 (maybe Shadows of Luclin era?). Prior to that you had the XP/levels that EQ1 was still popularizing for a larger offering than the dikuMUD folks would ever reach. And that was alongside the still-meritable skills-based game that was UO (the function of gaining skills through use was also in EQ1, but they were shackled by level caps along the way while UO was only shacked at a single point).
  
• Trade windows have been around since the earliest days of EQ1 and UO.

I could go on:

• Things like Faction have actually devolved over the years. Back in EQ1, you could grow beloved in one faction while hated in another and that mattered. Nowadays you're locked into it based on race choice in most games, and you'll never change it.
  
• There used to be XP loss upon death and you could lose levels if you lost enough XP. This evolved into XP debt (you didn't lose but in order to gain you had to pay off the debt). WoW took the step further removing XP loss altogether and converting "penalty" to a coin value (repairing armor) and an impact on effectiveness (stat debuff) unless you found your body and rezzed there... which is something I first experience in a more basic form in DAoC. Heck, in EQ1 you could die, lose XP, lose a level, and lose your body and all your gear if you died in a bad spot.
  
  

What else?

This isn't about what players want today or what businesses should do today to invent new rules. It's never been about that. Each step taken is based on the successes prior.

At the most academic/ethereal pie-in-sky level, it's all fungible. We could debate all day long the "best" this or the "cleanest" that. But without accounting for player expectations and prior business successes, it's useless brainstorming.

[Sky]

I do like pie.

[Mrbloodworth]

I do like pie.

But would you like a square pie.

[HRose]

Going back to what i was saying, a good portion of MMO players do not want something new.

And you are wrong again.

"New" doesn't equal "better". Or even "good".

If you can deliver something "new" that is also "better" or at least "good", the players will love it. The problem is that doing it is harder and risky. It has seen much less iterations.

If thousands of companies work on a particular game model, it is likely that after 1000 games that model is refined enough to be a good one. If instead one model is tried once, it is very unlikely that it will work perfectly on the first try and best everything else on the market (especially because they won't have the budget as the money goes where it is more safe).

But yet it doesn't mean that one model is better than the other, or even that the players just have chosen their preferred model. It's just that the market has flown in one direction, and consolidated there.

[cmlancas]

Hi, my name's HRose. I love generalities so that no one can really argue with me, I love quotation marks to add emphasis to words that people already understand, and I love that people don't listen to me.

Iterability of videogames? The fuck? Are you trying to imprint Derrida on the MMOG industry? I'd also point out that if something is truly "new," it has had zero iterations. Else, it is a copy. I think you mean to say "iteration of systems," giving reference to the different systems that are stock between games (Grouping, PVP, EXP, et al).


Also, I really think MBW is right: A good number of MMO players do not want something new, but something like new. But, I would have to defend this by noting that games like EVE do flourish. However, PVP has been around for a long time, so perhaps the true concept behind EVE isn't world-pvp, but functional world-pvp.

[Sky]

I do like pie.

But would you like a square pie.

Yes. But DQ said I was having academic/ethereal pie, with fungus. Not sure I want mushrooms in my pie. Unless it's a pizza pie. But even then they should be sautéed.

[Lantyssa]

Is ethereal pie glutten free?

[Kirth]

Is ethereal pie glutten free?

Yes, but its loaded with Trans(cendental) fats 

[Schazzwozzer]

I'd argue that players DO want new experiences and novelty.  It's just that players buy and play games for a LOT of different reasons, and novelty isn't always at the top of the list.  For a lot of players, fast and reliable satisfaction is much higher.

I think most players welcome the kind of evolution that Darniaq is talking about — sensible alterations and streamlining to familiar ideas and conventions.  Innovation becomes a more difficult sell when you're pursuing novelty and uniqueness for the sake of being novel and unique though, and it becomes even more difficult when you're pursuing novelty and uniqueness at the expense of playability.  Take Sacrifice, for example.  It was an interesting twist on the RTS, but ultimately I found it far more difficult to grasp and control than the humble Starcraft clone, without necessarily adding a lot to the mix in terms of real gameplay entertainment. 

So, my take is that innovation needs a purpose and goal.  For that innovation to then succeed in the marketplace, the goals have to be relevant to what the customers are looking for.  If I make an MMO that promises to CHANGE THE WAY YOU THINK ABOUT MMO UIs FOREVER, it's probably going to bomb, because "badass immersive UI" is not typically at the top of the WANT LIST for MMO players.

Oh, and unrelated, here are a few new WAR videos.  They're in French, lack audio, and are all in the same, rather dull-looking graveyard scenario.  What you DO see though is a Bright Wizard running around in sky blue (second video) and a Zealot wearing a yellow and lime green skirt/robe thing (third video).  It's an example of the dying system, I guess.

Also, the April newsletter should be coming pretty dang soon.  As per this thread, some of the webpages are already going up.  No hint of the fourth High Elf class though.

[IainC]

I'd argue that players DO want new experiences and novelty.  It's just that players buy and play games for a LOT of different reasons, and novelty isn't always at the top of the list.  For a lot of players, fast and reliable satisfaction is much higher.

Early adopters get excited by design decisions, innovation and rockstar devs. The rest of your market - which is to say the vast majority of the people you see roaming in any particular game are there because their friends are. As long as the ducks are lined up for them - genre, gameplay focus, art direction, compatibility with their PC - they tend not to care too much about whether their game du jour is riding the screaming edge of games design.

For once I'm not even pulling numbers out of my ass. I even did a survey.

Retention of those same players is a whole 'nother thing however. Again no-one leaves a game because it didn't push the envelope, they leave it because it wasn't fun or because all their friends got bored of it or because it was plain broken.

[cmlancas]

IainC, have you seen any industry research on Shklovskyan ideas of novelty and newness as reflected in video games?

[IainC]

IainC, have you seen any industry research on Shklovskyan ideas of novelty and newness as reflected in video games?

I can think of several devs who appear to be running a long experiment on just that topic.

The technique of art is to make objects ‘unfamiliar’, to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not important." (Shklovsky, "Art as Technique"

[HRose]

The rest of your market - which is to say the vast majority of the people you see roaming in any particular game are there because their friends are. As long as the ducks are lined up for them - genre, gameplay focus, art direction, compatibility with their PC - they tend not to care too much about whether their game du jour is riding the screaming edge of games design.

If that was true then WoW would be one of the game least played, as it's not simple to keep the same pace of your friends, level at the same speed, and gear up to keep on raiding and don't be kicked out of guilds.

If that was true than players would prefer playing without group restrictions, level restrictions, servers restrictions and so on.

In fact I would say that WoW isn't successful because it removes the barriers between you and your friends. But because it allows to play easily alone, solo, and grouping occasionally with people you'll never meet again and forget within a few minutes after the group disbanded.

[cmlancas]

I can think of several devs who appear to be running a long experiment on just that topic.

The technique of art is to make objects ‘unfamiliar’, to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not important." (Shklovsky, "Art as Technique"

I see your ninja edit! I saw it! I did I did!

Anyway, yeah. I think there's some credibility to that statement.

[Venkman]

In the realm of the most popular games, I draw a distinction between games as artistic pursuit and games as service business. This is because the former is most times both driven and constrained by the realities of the latter in this space. The process of going from pencil sketch to e-commerce requires it.

If you're doing art for the sake of doing art, you're in a different business

And heck, art itself seems evolutionary until movements and periods are retroactively applied to describe clear distinction. But that's a discussion for people who didn't jump from Fine Art to Industrial Design in college after two months of the former 20 years ago.

I prefer the greater overlap, the art that both inspires and are market successes. I'm just too base a person...

[Typhon]

I can think of several devs who appear to be running a long experiment on just that topic.

The technique of art is to make objects ‘unfamiliar’, to make forms difficult, to increase the difficulty and length of perception because the process of perception is an aesthetic end in itself and must be prolonged. Art is a way of experiencing the artfulness of an object; the object is not important." (Shklovsky, "Art as Technique"

and here I thought IainC's quote was a clever jab at "Games with Gind (TM)"... Darniaq, what are you babbling about?

[Venkman]

The artistic sub-topic. Throwing in my thoughts early in case it goes anywhere.

[tazelbain]

Another scenerio write up:  Not looking good.  More capture the flag and king of the hill,  Mythic is firmly inside the box.  It pointless to have so many Scenerios but only 3 templates to follow.

[Triforcer]

I plan to do world pvp and pretend those scenarios don't exist. 

[Kirth]

Another scenerio write up:  Not looking good.  More capture the flag and king of the hill,  Mythic is firmly inside the box.  It pointless to have so many Scenerios but only 3 templates to follow.

Is there even a lot of room for innovation in team based gaming scenarios?

[tmp]

Is there even a lot of room for innovation in team based gaming scenarios?

Well, Valve sort of just did with their gold rush map for TF2? Though i'm not sure, maybe that's not new; i don't play the FPS enough to know.

[Kirth]

Is there even a lot of room for innovation in team based gaming scenarios?

Well, Valve sort of just did with their gold rush map for TF2? Though i'm not sure, maybe that's not new; i don't play the FPS enough to know.

One could argue that goldrush is just a variation on capture point. what could mythic put into the scenarios that would make it seem "outside the box"?

[tmp]

One could argue that goldrush is just a variation on capture point. what could mythic put into the scenarios that would make it seem "outside the box"?

Possibly, nevertheless it is a variation rather than plain copy of the old concept. Which i guess is essential difference between thinking outside the box (if to limited degree) and staying firmly in...

[Schazzwozzer]

I guess the monthly newsletter is out, though I haven't received it yet.  From what I've heard, the final High Elf class is not revealed, so this video on WAR's guild system is probably the most notable new bit of information.

Getting back to the Scenarios though, it seems to me that they're perhaps the biggest unknown in WAR's design.  Even Blizzard was seemingly unable to get them to work exactly as desired, but maybe because they're just a PART of WAR's overall PvP experience and not the be-all end-all, it'll be easier to overlook the flaws?  I've heard that Scenario matches are set to last only around 15 minutes, which will probably be a good thing if they're sticking to the ol' FPS stand-bys — CTF, point domination, etc.

It's easy to imagine where issues will arise though.  Under-population, balance, rewards.  It's gonna be messy!

EDIT:  Oh yeah!  Something I wanted to mention about the guilds video... it mentions that guilds can level up, and, from this, there are practical stat bonuses that can be gained.  It sounds neat enough, but then at the same time, it's totally a positive feedback loop, where the strong just get stronger.  Typically not a good thing for competetive games. 

Also, I'm left wondering just HOW guilds level up.  Could a guild of only 8 people ever get their guild to the rank cap?  Won't huge uber guilds just fly to the guild rank cap?