WoW, or how the misuse terrific potential
I've castigated Everquest 2 for its many failings in the past few postings, so now let's turn a critical (and unsparing) eye on the current subscription-champion, World of Warcraft.
Let's throw out some qualifiers right away. Subscription numbers are NOT reflective of a game's quality. The best game in the world could have the lowest subscription numbers, and the worst piece of junk could draw in the most players. If you think subscription numbers = quality, stop reading.
And: I played World of Warcraft in Beta, and I played it for several months after release (what I like to call "extended paying Beta"), and then again in May and then August of this year. The complaints I had in Beta continued to be the same complaints I had in May and ultimately were still the same complaints in August. I've played every one of the major releases and far too many smaller specialty MMORPGs.
The potential: World of Warcraft comes after several Warcraft strategy games. What that means is, the MMORPG comes to the table with a pre-existing lore and story -- and a very deep, rich lore. The chance to roleplay (those last three letters in MMORPG, which are the most underused letters of all) in that setting was very exciting. They didn't need to create tons and tons of content from scratch -- they had a fleshed-out world just waiting to be realised.
Debatable: graphics. Blizzard chose to go with a glazed anime-style to their graphics. While it does let a wide range of computers run the game, it also leaves a lot to the individual's taste. Personally, I think the graphics are no better than, say, Asheron's Call at its release -- and AC1 was released in 1999. Something like Dark Ages of Camelot has better graphics -- and it was released several years ago. It's a question of individual taste -- lots of folks like it. I'm not going to judge the game based on this issue. For me, if the graphics convey the world in depth, and these do, then I'll keep playing -- the gameplay, the depth, the lore, the roleplaying is why I play. Graphics are the tool to render the world and realise the visualization -- okay graphics mated with phenomenal depth is preferable to me over the latest/greatest graphics mashed onto a poor, underdeveloped world.
The biggest complaint I have with WoW is simply that Blizzard brought nothing, literally nothing, new to the table. Is that automatically a problem? Nope. It's only a problem if they take existing conventions and game mechanics and don't do anything with them. In this case, Blizzard took all those existing conventions (questing, getting experience for killing and for doing quests, crafting, exploring) and game mechanics (camera use, creatures in the world, etc.) and dumbed them all down. Now, this is sheer genius in terms of creating a game to bring in the maximum dollars and the most subscribers. And they did this with an amazing polish. But what they created was the ultimate in MMORPG-Lite. By dumbing down all the mechanics and conventions, to maximize its "availability" to the most people out there, they spoiled it. Part of the point of any RPG, be it MMORPG or standalone or pen-and-paper, is to learn for oneself what's there -- to explore, to talk to the NPCs/PCs in the world to learn things. To be immersed not just visually (which it does achieve) but in a believable world. Here EQ2 does a good thing. Those NPCs in the world who have a quest to give animate and wave and attempt to get a player's attention -- by doing things that are believable and consistent within the world (waving, talking). How does Blizzard handle it? Again, their focus wasn't immersion, nor maintaining the consistent "believability" of its world. Blizzard put giant yellow ? over the heads of any NPC who had anything to say that was doable by a player. Which mechanic facilitates the immersion in a believable world? It surely isn't giant yellow ? hanging in the air.
But it's worse than just that. That's one example. Every game mechanic was similarly simplified. The purpose of the simplifications? To remove from the player the need to do anything for themselves, to actually learn from the world. In WoW, once the NPC gives its little fixed speech, that's it -- it won't talk again, unless it has another quest to give. No fleshing out of the people, no talking about the weather or how the snows have made it hard, etc. Here's your quest, that's it. It's totally focused on "do your task" mentalities. Does the player have to, say, figure out for himself that he has to talk to people in order to learn things? Nope. The game mechanic intrudes into the world to do it for you, because (according to Blizzard) people want it as easy as possible. No, Blizzard, not all people do. Some of us actually want to roleplay, to have to think for ourselves, instead of having the game shove each step at us visually and intrusively.
Another key to MMORPG life is the constant addition of content, preferably dynamic (aka changing/changeable content) content. Blizzard has just now reached its patch 1.7, which implies 7 content updates. Everquest 2 in that time has released more than fifteen huge content updates, including a complete revamping of every skill and spell in the game, as well as several online expansions and one retail expansion. Dark Ages of Camelot has pushed more content in the same timeperiod, and has another retail expansion out; Asheron's Call 1 has done several live events (with content that players actually interact with and generally content that allows players to have a lasting effect (dynamic content) on the world) and has had one commercial expansion in that same time period. What's the point here? Blizzard entered the MMORPG genre and has failed magnificently at the most basic of aspects of the genre: supporting the game and expanding the game in a dynamic sense. And, coincidentally, their attempt at "live events", which they make much fanfare about, have been adding Santa Clause to the cities (um, Santa doesn't exist in World of Warcraft???), or Easter Eggs (huh? Inconsistent with world lore), and of course... a fishing contest! Yes, that's their idea of dynamic content. What's some other folks ideas of dynamic content? Well, let's see. Asheron's Call's live events have deformed terrain, burned villages, and generally altered the storyline and geography several times over. That would be "players affecting the world". What's Horizons idea of dynamic content? Letting players build housing, bridges, etc and demolish the same that is fully realised in the world. What was WoW's idea again? Oh, yes, a fishing contest, or hiding Easter Eggs, or a travelling Faire with some wack-a-mole games. Hm. Wonder which one will appeal to the roleplayers of the world.
The Gamer will continue the WoW commentary on Monday, in part 2 of this ongoing commentary.
Let's throw out some qualifiers right away. Subscription numbers are NOT reflective of a game's quality. The best game in the world could have the lowest subscription numbers, and the worst piece of junk could draw in the most players. If you think subscription numbers = quality, stop reading.
And: I played World of Warcraft in Beta, and I played it for several months after release (what I like to call "extended paying Beta"), and then again in May and then August of this year. The complaints I had in Beta continued to be the same complaints I had in May and ultimately were still the same complaints in August. I've played every one of the major releases and far too many smaller specialty MMORPGs.
The potential: World of Warcraft comes after several Warcraft strategy games. What that means is, the MMORPG comes to the table with a pre-existing lore and story -- and a very deep, rich lore. The chance to roleplay (those last three letters in MMORPG, which are the most underused letters of all) in that setting was very exciting. They didn't need to create tons and tons of content from scratch -- they had a fleshed-out world just waiting to be realised.
Debatable: graphics. Blizzard chose to go with a glazed anime-style to their graphics. While it does let a wide range of computers run the game, it also leaves a lot to the individual's taste. Personally, I think the graphics are no better than, say, Asheron's Call at its release -- and AC1 was released in 1999. Something like Dark Ages of Camelot has better graphics -- and it was released several years ago. It's a question of individual taste -- lots of folks like it. I'm not going to judge the game based on this issue. For me, if the graphics convey the world in depth, and these do, then I'll keep playing -- the gameplay, the depth, the lore, the roleplaying is why I play. Graphics are the tool to render the world and realise the visualization -- okay graphics mated with phenomenal depth is preferable to me over the latest/greatest graphics mashed onto a poor, underdeveloped world.
The biggest complaint I have with WoW is simply that Blizzard brought nothing, literally nothing, new to the table. Is that automatically a problem? Nope. It's only a problem if they take existing conventions and game mechanics and don't do anything with them. In this case, Blizzard took all those existing conventions (questing, getting experience for killing and for doing quests, crafting, exploring) and game mechanics (camera use, creatures in the world, etc.) and dumbed them all down. Now, this is sheer genius in terms of creating a game to bring in the maximum dollars and the most subscribers. And they did this with an amazing polish. But what they created was the ultimate in MMORPG-Lite. By dumbing down all the mechanics and conventions, to maximize its "availability" to the most people out there, they spoiled it. Part of the point of any RPG, be it MMORPG or standalone or pen-and-paper, is to learn for oneself what's there -- to explore, to talk to the NPCs/PCs in the world to learn things. To be immersed not just visually (which it does achieve) but in a believable world. Here EQ2 does a good thing. Those NPCs in the world who have a quest to give animate and wave and attempt to get a player's attention -- by doing things that are believable and consistent within the world (waving, talking). How does Blizzard handle it? Again, their focus wasn't immersion, nor maintaining the consistent "believability" of its world. Blizzard put giant yellow ? over the heads of any NPC who had anything to say that was doable by a player. Which mechanic facilitates the immersion in a believable world? It surely isn't giant yellow ? hanging in the air.
But it's worse than just that. That's one example. Every game mechanic was similarly simplified. The purpose of the simplifications? To remove from the player the need to do anything for themselves, to actually learn from the world. In WoW, once the NPC gives its little fixed speech, that's it -- it won't talk again, unless it has another quest to give. No fleshing out of the people, no talking about the weather or how the snows have made it hard, etc. Here's your quest, that's it. It's totally focused on "do your task" mentalities. Does the player have to, say, figure out for himself that he has to talk to people in order to learn things? Nope. The game mechanic intrudes into the world to do it for you, because (according to Blizzard) people want it as easy as possible. No, Blizzard, not all people do. Some of us actually want to roleplay, to have to think for ourselves, instead of having the game shove each step at us visually and intrusively.
Another key to MMORPG life is the constant addition of content, preferably dynamic (aka changing/changeable content) content. Blizzard has just now reached its patch 1.7, which implies 7 content updates. Everquest 2 in that time has released more than fifteen huge content updates, including a complete revamping of every skill and spell in the game, as well as several online expansions and one retail expansion. Dark Ages of Camelot has pushed more content in the same timeperiod, and has another retail expansion out; Asheron's Call 1 has done several live events (with content that players actually interact with and generally content that allows players to have a lasting effect (dynamic content) on the world) and has had one commercial expansion in that same time period. What's the point here? Blizzard entered the MMORPG genre and has failed magnificently at the most basic of aspects of the genre: supporting the game and expanding the game in a dynamic sense. And, coincidentally, their attempt at "live events", which they make much fanfare about, have been adding Santa Clause to the cities (um, Santa doesn't exist in World of Warcraft???), or Easter Eggs (huh? Inconsistent with world lore), and of course... a fishing contest! Yes, that's their idea of dynamic content. What's some other folks ideas of dynamic content? Well, let's see. Asheron's Call's live events have deformed terrain, burned villages, and generally altered the storyline and geography several times over. That would be "players affecting the world". What's Horizons idea of dynamic content? Letting players build housing, bridges, etc and demolish the same that is fully realised in the world. What was WoW's idea again? Oh, yes, a fishing contest, or hiding Easter Eggs, or a travelling Faire with some wack-a-mole games. Hm. Wonder which one will appeal to the roleplayers of the world.
The Gamer will continue the WoW commentary on Monday, in part 2 of this ongoing commentary.
posted by Thurken | 11:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home