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.
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.
posted by Thurken | 11:30 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home