Playstyles, Game design, and how to create a world for everyone

This time, let's again focus on EQ2. The so-called casual player, who for whatever reason, be it the various "real-world" things that affect game-playing time (like wife, children, job, etc.), or simply by choice (preferring it), simply doesn't have or like to put the time into forming a group (which can take a lot of time itself) or doesn't like the fact that, all too often, you spend the time (often a half-hour or more) to get a group together only to discover you're "working with" a bunch of l33t-speaking idiots or selfish morons who think only of themselves. These players clash with the RAID-centric and group-centric players, who seem to be the current (and original) focus of SOE with regards to EQ2. Or, I should say, they don't clash -- too many group-players bash casual/solo players, often mindlessly. I've seen far too many forums with too much mindless, childish bashing of one style or another, one player or another, and usually without a single cohesive thought in the diatribes.

What is the solo player interested in? Content. Questing. Story. Character development, in ways that includes the stat-development (attributes, skills) but more importantly in the development of actual CHARACTER instead of STATISTIC. Exploring. Learning the environment for themselves, instead of being narrowly herded from one place to another in a linear fashion. They don't want to be the only playstyle in a game -- but they want the game to accomodate their playstyle. Ironically, the first EQ (Everquest) achieved that, though the focus of the game was RAIDing and grouping. The gameworld was open by design and facilitated the "explore the world" mentality, where literally roaming the world "To see what's around the next corner" could take months and motnhs if not years. I solo'd a Froglok shaman and a Dwarf Paladin literally for years, grouping only VERY ocassionally (probably less than ten times total in the space of years) and never doing any RAIDs. Roaming the world was awesome (until they added the portal-books, that let you jump from place to place, thereby reducing the value of actual exploration) and involving. Was an area filled with creatures too tough for the individual? The challenge became to find a way around them, to see what was beyond them -- and that was precisely the point: the environment created a challenge for the soloer (learn and adapt, find innovative ways to face or get around obstacles) and the grouper (attack with partners) and didn't pit them against one another in a perverted "battle over who gets too much content". That sort of argument only comes around if the game's design herds people along a limited number of geographic areas, accessible only at certain levels (either by putting in artificial limitations to getting to those areas, or by artificially clumping hordes of creatures to achieve the same "barrier"). And that brings us back to EQ2, which is guilty of all those things.

EQ2 out of the box was a FRACTION of the space EQ1 offered, but worse than that, it offered, effectively, only two starting areas (Queynos/suburbs and Freeport/suburbs). Progression was excessively over-tailored to "open up" new geographic areas ONLY as you reached new levels, thereby destroying the game for the "explorer" gamer. At first, you literally COULDN'T go between areas without doing horrendous "access" quests that were unsolo-able. Then they opened that up, but concentrated hordes of creatures that were level-specific to prevent exploration for its own sake. Again, the game's focus is so narrowly tailored, from a geographic sense, that EVERY SINGLE PLAYER has to follow the same route. Example: all Queynos suburb players will do the same few "zones" around Queynos, before reaching a high enough level to feasibly go into Antonica, the first big geographic area outside the city area. It's literally the same for the Freeport area, just renamed. In the old EQ (and many others, if not most others) with its spread-out starting areas, there was diversity of geography and a vast array of content for starting levels, with the corresponding freedom in the game's design to be explorable. Or, rephrased: more starting areas by definition equals more exploration by more players. Fewer correspondingly "focuses" all the players through the same progression of the same areas in a nice, linear line.

What's the lesson, for this portion of the argument (exploration)? That it is far better to have a plethora of starting options for players that AREN'T clumped in one area -- spread them out, which in turn spreads out and diversifies the starting content (and subsequent level contents too), and frees up the gameworld from artificial limitations that require players to adhere to a train-like progression that's predefined for them. Explorers get a world they can explore, even in the dangerous areas; solo players get tons of content to play through, because of the need to "surround" each starting area with said content; and group-players get the same, as areas can be better tackled with coordinated tactics than solo (though again, there shouldn't be specific "group" or "solo" content, it should be the same content, the difference being how one individual chooses to tackle the obstacle over other's choices). Diverse starting areas that are separated by geography also get other benefits: it creates a value to travelling and exploring, in order to see the other cities/starting areas, and to see the other races (since most starting areas in MMORPGs are racially-defined); it spreads out content, which by definition offers a wider, more diverse, and deeper world, where players seek the content instead of it being heavily-concentrated in one area where everyone goes to the same NPCs over and over again (aka, as EQ2 is now, think Queynos, everyone regardless of race on the Queynos side has to see the same people, etc., no diversity by choosing a different race, etc.).

Who get it right? The original EQ. The original Asheron's Call. Both of these introduced expansions that right away began adding new starting areas, which only added to the world's depth for all players at all levels. Dark Ages of Camelot (to a lesser extent than the other two). World of Warcraft (roughly, multiple starting areas that overlap but still spread out the content and thereby offers up a world to explore freely). In all of these, a low or high level character could explore the world -- the low level character could wander and attempt the challenge of seeing areas with creatures too big for them to fight, by being careful, by thinking. I know, I've done exactly that in all these games -- WoW, crossing the marshes as a sub-level-12 character, it was challenging, dangerous, and therefore thrilling. Horizons -- doesn't have "multiple starting areas", only has one, but you can travel to a wide array of distant areas that are effectively "starting areas". And more.

Who gets it utterly wrong? EQ2. You choose any Good-aligned race, you start in the tightly-clumped suburbs of Queynos. You do the same quests as literally every other good-aligned race (the only difference being class-specific quests), over and over again. You fight in the same few areas, moving to the next "set of areas" ONLY when your level allows it. There's ZERO chance of navigating the world for exploration purposes, say of setting out at level 10 to wander Antonica to see what was there and then head into the Thundering Steppes and wander there. Exploration value? Zip. Your exploration, like everthing else in EQ2, is narrowly tailored and limited by the game design.

That isn't to say EQ2 is a failure as a game. I'd rather spend time and money playing it than WoW. How WoW fails is a different article -- and perhaps the saddest story of all (the most mis-used potential of any game, ever). But I'm not paying for EQ2 anymore, which means one less Station Access pass (the more expensive subscription type) for them. When they expand the game and spread out the world, I'll come back and play. Until then, there are too many other options that actually allow more than one or two narrowly-tailored playstyles (notably group/RAID) to feel "worthy" or successful.

Next time, the failings of WoW, and why it represents the greatest disappointment of any game, at any time, ever (other than the failure to properly create sequels to the original XCOM masterpiece) -- even though it has the most players of any game. I love paradoxes.