Great Games for Roleplayers, part 2

-- World of Warcraft. This is an excellent introduction to MMORPGs, and RPGs in general, but it shouldn't be taken to be, in its current form, anything more than that. The game does nothing exceptionally, nor does it introduce anything new (or even a new take on an old idea) or bring any new ideas to the MMORPG table, but it does take the already-existing concepts (crafting, questing, killing creatures, etc.) and polish them and simplify them to make them immensely accessible. For someone unused to the MMORPG genre, WoW is an excellent and mostly uncomplicated way to "get into" the genre without feeling overwhelmed. Rephrased: if you're overwhelmed by anything in WoW, you're not really going to find fun in the MMORPG genre. Where WoW fails is exactly the same thing that makes it such a great intro-RPG: it's oversimplified everything, which ruins the "world" for most players with a long history of offline RPGs and other MMORPGs. Crafting in WoW, for example, allows zero customization, which means that each and every item you build will be exactly the same as the equal item being built by the other three million people building one. That isn't a good system -- but it is a good system to introduce the idea of crafting to someone who isn't familiar with it. This is also where Blizzard could focus a bit of work: improve crafting, introduce customization to the crafting process, let people tinker and twist their creations to produce things that are truly "made by X", and you'll greatly improve the game (for those who've played other MMORPGs). Fleshing out the NPCs in the world, so that they have more to say than just the required dialogue of "I'm a seller" or "here's your quest", would go far to creating a deep, believable gameworld. There is one area that WoW is utterly schizophrenic: the game level 1-59 is very casual friendly. It's endgame, which is a term that basically encompasses "what one can do at the max level", is exactly the opposite: a RAID-specific (getting very large numbers of players together to attack something together) focus is most of the endgame, coupled with running only a few instances together (again, requiring large groups of players). It would go far for Blizzard to stop relying on instances and RAIDs and start developing an endgame philosophy that is something new -- something more roleplaying, something deeper and more involving than repetitive killing.
-- Guild Wars. There's little positive to say for Guild Wars, from the perspective of roleplaying. The game is almost entirely instanced, meaning that, once you leave the cities where all players exist together, you're by yourself or with only those who are "grouped" with you. So, in the whole wilderness, there is no "massively multiplayer" -- you're it, roaming an empty world devoid of other players and therefore the interaction of the MM part of MMORPG. Basically, the game really is built for those who don't want to have to think much or do much, who want to just dive into the Arena and fight other players (PvP). It's so far in that direction that you even get to "auto-level" to the max level while fighting in the Arena -- thereby eliminating the value of the RPG in MMORPG, since you don't have to develop anything or put any effort into building a character. It's auto-levelled, go kill -- that's the philosophy. If you enjoyed Diablo2, for instance, you'll probably enjoy GuildWars. If you enjoyed Morrowind or real RPGs, you'll hate GuildWars. If you're looking to play a role, build a character, interact with thousands of other players during your travels -- look elsewhere.

More later.

State of the MMORPG

Somewhere, out there, someone will create an MMORPG that is actually immersive and uses its game mechanics to facilitate and emphasize that immersion instead of violating it. I've gone on in different posts about how World of Warcraft's "simplifications" to things like the huge yellow ? intrude into the persistent game world, or how the mob-structure in Everquest 2 also works against it.

What I want is something of the following mix:

1) One part Horizons crafting -- in Horizons, there are a wide array of materials to customize your creations with, as well as specials and dyes that take customization even further. Games like WoW offer crafting that is so simplified as to be sterile -- the "big copper sword" you make will look and have stats exactly like every other "big copper sword" made. Horizons, which has little else to offer, took customizable crafting to a nearly-perfect state, offering the customizability within an easy-to-use interface. Brilliant.

2) One part Dark Ages of Camelot -- the Realm-Versus-Realm PvP is brilliant. Having territory that's "contested" and actually looks like it is contested (and not just a portal into an instance) was a great way to go (and they did it years ago to boot). Ideally, we'd have the contested territories change -- so that at some point territories actually are "acquired" and become "stable zones" for normal exploration, etc; while the "battle" moves into other geographies (believably).
3) Another part Dark Ages of Camelot -- the idea of tasks (kill missions) and quests (which tend to be more detailed, "plot"-worthy, and often dynamic missions) being two separate things is a good one. Junking the repetitive "kill this" as the MAIN type of quest is always a good thing -- though there should be plenty of "kill X" tasks in the world too. Hence the value of separating the two different "tiers" of missions.

4) Dynamic Roleplaying -- for instance, in a fantasy game, there should be an ability for players to become a dynamic part of the world they're in. so, for instance, if there's a monarchy, perhaps the players can compete initially for titles of squire (with squire-specific questing available, and squire-level Arena PvP with rewards for winning and "honor" distinctions for winning) and upward. Eventually, players can become members of the nobility. Perhaps as a new Lord, they are tasked with quests from the Monarch -- which could include putting together a force to enter a "contested territory" and win it back. In that situation, all the players the Player-Lord gets together get the experience and benefits of the fighting -- but the noble gets the status award for completing the Monarch's quest (which could be access to special merchants, heavy discounts from regular merchants, additional roleplaying rewards like a family-name for the player which might be able to be used by the player's other characters on the same server). Structures like that are dynamic, they go far in building the world's lore and involving the player's in that lore, and they offer endgame possibilities that are more than simply endless Instance-runs or RAIDs.
5) Dynamic items/terrain -- the ability to scale mountains and look out at the land is a key component to the exploration-factor of an MMORPG (or any RPG). Being able, for instance, to chop down trees and then harvest the wood would be excellent. Having the items in the game all physically realised in the gameworld, a la AC1 or DAOC (where each and every item can be dropped and will be physically there in the world where they lay) or EQ1 (where items are dropped and remain for one day and are represented by little "inventory bags"). Even EQ1's way would be better than the EQ2/WoW standard, where items just get "destroyed". Further, items sold to merchants should be able to be bought from those merchants by other people (and yourself) -- again, like DAOC, EQ1, AC1, with a timer that empties the merchant's inventory every eight hours or once/day. A believable weather system -- which AC1 proved was possible in 1999, six years ago! -- would also go far to creating a believable environment.

6) Skill-based combat, not button-mashing combat. In AC1, a player had to move himself during combat to keep his shield between his body and the enemy, or the shield wouldn't count -- that's interactive. Just learning what buttons to mash in what order isn't. I'm not sure what sort of combination of the two would result in the "best" system, but there needs to be some of the AC1 "movement" during combat, that level of involvement, with the button-mashing of WoW and EQ1. Again using AC1, the ability to target different "heights" on the targets (head, waist, ankle-sweep) and have different creatures stronger and weaker in those areas is innovative -- as opposed to the "you stand there, I stand here, we bash each other".

More later.