Everquest 2, or how to confuse your players in six easy steps
Well, I've spent a lot of time in MMORPGs, and hold up the original Everquest and the original Asheron's Call as the examples of how to put together games that have that "magic something" that is simultaneously compelling, immersive, and involving. I've ranted about WoW and its shortcomings.
Let me turn now to Everquest 2. I wanted to praise this particular game, and would have in August, but things have changed a bit since then. A little something called the "Combat Revamp" was launched simultaneously with the release of the expansion "Desert of Flames" -- okay, not "little" at all, actually a massive rewrite of the combat rules and encounter rules, a redo of every skill and spell in the game.
Let me step back a bit. I started with EQ2 on day-one, played for two months, and left. The game was interesting, the lore was sufficiently deep (the stuff that supports the world's "stories" is the Lore of a game)... yet it just wasn't fun. Let me qualify: I tend to play solo, though not exclusively so. Call me someone who is picky about the groups I play with. I can't abide the l33t-speaking hordes out there (which, mercifully, are comparitively few in EQ2). Nor can I stand those who are group with you solely to advance their own cause and leave as soon as they're done -- whether you're done or not, and regardless of where you are. So if it took a group to get there, to achieve something, and suddenly these morons break the group and warp back to the city, you're left by yourself in danger country. Not good community, and not fun. So I probably solo 80-85% of the time.
What are my expectations, then, as a primarily solo-player? To be able to involve myself in the world and the stories -- which means quests and any game mechanics that create involvement (crafting, Guilds, etc.). Mostly, I'm looking to explore the world, unravel mysteries, and develop the character as it grows while I do those things. What am I most definitely NOT looking for? The game mechanics to force one particular method of playing down my throat. Game mechanics that intrude into the gameworld and thereby ruin its "believability" (what I call its immersive factor).
When EQ2 launched, it had "locked encounters". That means, if you ran up to a creature and attacked it, you and only you could fight it, and no one else could help you in any way, shape, manner, or form... unless you hit the "help" button, in which case you no longer get any benefit from having tried the fight. That method of locking encounters had the direct and specific effect of isolating players -- at least, isolating solo players, since those grouped already have support. Now, I'll freely admit that I love the whole "walk the world like Kane in Kung Fu" sort of approach, helping folks, building a rep through my actions, etc. I don't like a game mechanic that intrudes by forcing me to stand by while someone gets in over their heads and I can't toss in a heal or a buff to help them. Again, that ruins immersion and the "believability" of the environment. What's stopping me from acting, in the "environment"? Nothing -- except the forced game mechanic. So that was a HUGE turn-off.
The way creatures used to work, and still do in most games, is that they have what I'll call a "social radius" that defines their "aggressiveness" -- aka, if you stray into that area around a creature that is within it's radius, and it's aggressive, it'll attack you. That makes sense, and it doesn't put an artificial game-mechanic forcibly in the environment that, once again, would break the believability and immersiveness of that world. EQ2 served up "grouped" creatures -- you click on one creature, and you'll either get one creature or you'll "see" the mechanic that says that that creature is linked to six others, for instance. er.. okay. What if the one I target is on this side of a hill, and the other five are on the other? How is that believable, if that one target isn't within "shouting" range of the others, or in seeing range? It isn't believable at all -- it's another "game mechanic" that intrudes, replacing a system that worked perfectly well in eQ1 and works great in other games. You want to have an encounter with six creatures? Put them close together, or have their "patrol" paths cross. That also leaves it to the PLAYER to figure out the ENVIRONMENT and think for themselves how to approach the problem, instead of just artificially linking the creatures and removing any tactical thought from the equation.
So I'm not happy with EQ2 at launch. The mechanics are all group-oriented, designed to "force" one style of play (grouping) over all other styles (solo in particular). Is there soloable content? Sure. And now we come to game design. The mechanics above facilitate grouping, not soloing. Further, the layout of creatures/mobs was contrary to solo play. If we have a mob of creatures that's labelled "group", as in, not able to be done by anything other than a group, and we have one creature that's labelled "solo", and we put the solo target at the firepit and surround that target with the "group" mobs -- that ISN'T good design, but that's what EQ2 did all over the place. Can they say they had solo content? Sure. Was it actually good, well-designed solo content? Nope. And it definitely played out as being NOT FUN.
There are other things to say about EQ2 at launch, but I'm going to focus on the themes above. Throughout Spring and early Summer, EQ2 changed -- they specifically advertised that they were making the game more "solo friendly". So what did they do? They "re-tiered" the world to remove some of the idiocy of the "group"/"solo" mob distinctions and make the targets more sensible. That's a plus. With the big change that came in September, they did more positives. The idiotic "locked encounter" mechanic became OPTIONAL -- as in, you can turn it off, and wander the world and help people who also have it turned off. Much better for building believability in the world (as few game mechanics intruding in the world as possible, at least visibly; the best game mechanics are the ones that are transparent, aka "under the hood") and for building community. The big combat changes actually made combat more exciting in some cases -- there are issues in those changes with some classes, but again, I'm not going to delve into that. Suffice it to say, most of the combat changes themselves weren't bad, and the overall wasn't bad.
So it sounds like I'd give EQ2 a big plus, right? I would have -- if they hadn't re-tiered the game world again at the same time as doing the changes above. Suddenly, we're back to the "one solo target amid a sea of group targets" in far too many places. Suddenly we're back to looking at our quest journal (where we keep track of what quests we're doing) and seeing lots of "heroic" tabs, where heroic refers to group-only targets (heroic target = group target only). So suddenly, lots of the things that solo players play for, notably involving themselves in the world and its stories, CAN'T BE DONE, because the retiering of the world has made so many quests undoable by solo players.
So, where are we now? They've done some things right, from my perspective. They've removed a lot of the game mechanics that intruded in the gameworld environment -- or they made them optional, as with the locked encounter mechanism. They've added substantially to the lore of the world - tons of quests, creatures, etc. Those are all good things.
Here's the big "but": BUT, the retiering was moronic. It undid a lot of the positive from the last few months, but worst of all, it specifically made far too many quests "heroic" and thereby NOT DOABLE by solo players. That sort of change targets solo players DIRECTLY, by affecting the things in the game they do the most. And it wasn't a positive change at all.
So I'm torn. I'd like to recommend EQ2, but I have to qualify the game now. If you like to group, and don't mind waiting for groups to form (which can also take a while, which then makes it even more aggravating when you wind up with the aforementioned l33t-speaking idiots or the greedy self-focused idiots), then you're fine. There's nothing in this game to prevent you from taking enjoyment in this virtual fantasy world. If you're a solo player, and you AREN'T running a character that you'd already levelled up past 30 or so BEFORE the changes went in, you're going to hit lots of areas that are just poorly designed -- or, if I take a more sinister take on things, designed specifically to reduce your options for play (more "heroic" quests = fewer quests for us to do). Here's hoping that they'll move back fully onto the path of taking EQ2 in a more immersive, more lore-oriented path -- where the content is open and available to all, the challenge comes from the design of the world instead of the game mechanics that intrude into the world, and (my personal hope) from multiple starting areas being added in future expansions. But that's another argument... :)
Let me turn now to Everquest 2. I wanted to praise this particular game, and would have in August, but things have changed a bit since then. A little something called the "Combat Revamp" was launched simultaneously with the release of the expansion "Desert of Flames" -- okay, not "little" at all, actually a massive rewrite of the combat rules and encounter rules, a redo of every skill and spell in the game.
Let me step back a bit. I started with EQ2 on day-one, played for two months, and left. The game was interesting, the lore was sufficiently deep (the stuff that supports the world's "stories" is the Lore of a game)... yet it just wasn't fun. Let me qualify: I tend to play solo, though not exclusively so. Call me someone who is picky about the groups I play with. I can't abide the l33t-speaking hordes out there (which, mercifully, are comparitively few in EQ2). Nor can I stand those who are group with you solely to advance their own cause and leave as soon as they're done -- whether you're done or not, and regardless of where you are. So if it took a group to get there, to achieve something, and suddenly these morons break the group and warp back to the city, you're left by yourself in danger country. Not good community, and not fun. So I probably solo 80-85% of the time.
What are my expectations, then, as a primarily solo-player? To be able to involve myself in the world and the stories -- which means quests and any game mechanics that create involvement (crafting, Guilds, etc.). Mostly, I'm looking to explore the world, unravel mysteries, and develop the character as it grows while I do those things. What am I most definitely NOT looking for? The game mechanics to force one particular method of playing down my throat. Game mechanics that intrude into the gameworld and thereby ruin its "believability" (what I call its immersive factor).
When EQ2 launched, it had "locked encounters". That means, if you ran up to a creature and attacked it, you and only you could fight it, and no one else could help you in any way, shape, manner, or form... unless you hit the "help" button, in which case you no longer get any benefit from having tried the fight. That method of locking encounters had the direct and specific effect of isolating players -- at least, isolating solo players, since those grouped already have support. Now, I'll freely admit that I love the whole "walk the world like Kane in Kung Fu" sort of approach, helping folks, building a rep through my actions, etc. I don't like a game mechanic that intrudes by forcing me to stand by while someone gets in over their heads and I can't toss in a heal or a buff to help them. Again, that ruins immersion and the "believability" of the environment. What's stopping me from acting, in the "environment"? Nothing -- except the forced game mechanic. So that was a HUGE turn-off.
The way creatures used to work, and still do in most games, is that they have what I'll call a "social radius" that defines their "aggressiveness" -- aka, if you stray into that area around a creature that is within it's radius, and it's aggressive, it'll attack you. That makes sense, and it doesn't put an artificial game-mechanic forcibly in the environment that, once again, would break the believability and immersiveness of that world. EQ2 served up "grouped" creatures -- you click on one creature, and you'll either get one creature or you'll "see" the mechanic that says that that creature is linked to six others, for instance. er.. okay. What if the one I target is on this side of a hill, and the other five are on the other? How is that believable, if that one target isn't within "shouting" range of the others, or in seeing range? It isn't believable at all -- it's another "game mechanic" that intrudes, replacing a system that worked perfectly well in eQ1 and works great in other games. You want to have an encounter with six creatures? Put them close together, or have their "patrol" paths cross. That also leaves it to the PLAYER to figure out the ENVIRONMENT and think for themselves how to approach the problem, instead of just artificially linking the creatures and removing any tactical thought from the equation.
So I'm not happy with EQ2 at launch. The mechanics are all group-oriented, designed to "force" one style of play (grouping) over all other styles (solo in particular). Is there soloable content? Sure. And now we come to game design. The mechanics above facilitate grouping, not soloing. Further, the layout of creatures/mobs was contrary to solo play. If we have a mob of creatures that's labelled "group", as in, not able to be done by anything other than a group, and we have one creature that's labelled "solo", and we put the solo target at the firepit and surround that target with the "group" mobs -- that ISN'T good design, but that's what EQ2 did all over the place. Can they say they had solo content? Sure. Was it actually good, well-designed solo content? Nope. And it definitely played out as being NOT FUN.
There are other things to say about EQ2 at launch, but I'm going to focus on the themes above. Throughout Spring and early Summer, EQ2 changed -- they specifically advertised that they were making the game more "solo friendly". So what did they do? They "re-tiered" the world to remove some of the idiocy of the "group"/"solo" mob distinctions and make the targets more sensible. That's a plus. With the big change that came in September, they did more positives. The idiotic "locked encounter" mechanic became OPTIONAL -- as in, you can turn it off, and wander the world and help people who also have it turned off. Much better for building believability in the world (as few game mechanics intruding in the world as possible, at least visibly; the best game mechanics are the ones that are transparent, aka "under the hood") and for building community. The big combat changes actually made combat more exciting in some cases -- there are issues in those changes with some classes, but again, I'm not going to delve into that. Suffice it to say, most of the combat changes themselves weren't bad, and the overall wasn't bad.
So it sounds like I'd give EQ2 a big plus, right? I would have -- if they hadn't re-tiered the game world again at the same time as doing the changes above. Suddenly, we're back to the "one solo target amid a sea of group targets" in far too many places. Suddenly we're back to looking at our quest journal (where we keep track of what quests we're doing) and seeing lots of "heroic" tabs, where heroic refers to group-only targets (heroic target = group target only). So suddenly, lots of the things that solo players play for, notably involving themselves in the world and its stories, CAN'T BE DONE, because the retiering of the world has made so many quests undoable by solo players.
So, where are we now? They've done some things right, from my perspective. They've removed a lot of the game mechanics that intruded in the gameworld environment -- or they made them optional, as with the locked encounter mechanism. They've added substantially to the lore of the world - tons of quests, creatures, etc. Those are all good things.
Here's the big "but": BUT, the retiering was moronic. It undid a lot of the positive from the last few months, but worst of all, it specifically made far too many quests "heroic" and thereby NOT DOABLE by solo players. That sort of change targets solo players DIRECTLY, by affecting the things in the game they do the most. And it wasn't a positive change at all.
So I'm torn. I'd like to recommend EQ2, but I have to qualify the game now. If you like to group, and don't mind waiting for groups to form (which can also take a while, which then makes it even more aggravating when you wind up with the aforementioned l33t-speaking idiots or the greedy self-focused idiots), then you're fine. There's nothing in this game to prevent you from taking enjoyment in this virtual fantasy world. If you're a solo player, and you AREN'T running a character that you'd already levelled up past 30 or so BEFORE the changes went in, you're going to hit lots of areas that are just poorly designed -- or, if I take a more sinister take on things, designed specifically to reduce your options for play (more "heroic" quests = fewer quests for us to do). Here's hoping that they'll move back fully onto the path of taking EQ2 in a more immersive, more lore-oriented path -- where the content is open and available to all, the challenge comes from the design of the world instead of the game mechanics that intrude into the world, and (my personal hope) from multiple starting areas being added in future expansions. But that's another argument... :)
posted by Thurken | 2:05 PM
|
0 comments
