Come to Gaze Upon Me, Have You?

/quit

2006-02-13T16:10:00.000-08:00

Two things that bother me:
1. Essential game functions that can only be performed with arcane /commands. This is a sign of a poor interface. Star Wars Galaxies had about a hundred of these, if I remember correctly.

2. The use of these /commands in forum posts. You know, when someone makes a post and the next person replies with "/boggle" or somesuch. It is ten times worse when they are used in spoken conversation.

However, since this was an EQ2 blog, I have used culture-appropriate terminology. Yes, if it was not obvious, I am no longer posting here. I will explain why. Last year, I started a game design consulting company. I do basically what I have done here--pick apart games and game concepts and figure out how to make them better. It takes a lot of work to keep it going, which gives me less time to write (for free, anyway), and certainly no time to keep playing EQ2. In addition, it's not a good idea for me to talk about issues that directly involve my clients or their competitors.

Quick tradeskill suggestion

2005-09-05T23:04:00.000-07:00

I've said in the past that the whole trade skill system in EQ2 should be scrapped, preferably in favor of some sort of mini-game that is specific to each crafting skill. This would make trade skills more fun and less susceptible to bots, both of which are severe problems right now.

Anyway, that will mostly likely never happen. So, looking at the current system, there is one obvious improvement to be made: instant recipe filtering. You would have a couple text boxes where the user can type things in, and an item box next to each text box where the user can drop an item. When something is typed into the "Product" box, all recipe names containing that string would be displayed. Same thing for "Ingredient" box. Or you can just drop a product or ingredient in your inventory (it also remains there) into the item boxes for the same effect.

So let's say you had some extra pristine tanned stretch of leathers in your inventory. You could type in "tanned stretch of leather" into the ingredient box, and all recipes that use that component would be displayed. Now you have a much easier time finding a recipe you can use.

Or perhaps you are looking for a certain recipe--say, "steel rapier". It will take you a good amount of time and effort to find that recipe in your list of hundreds, if you even have it. Allowing a search/filter, where you can just type in "steel rapier" and immediately see the recipe, would simplify and speed up this process significantly.

Cheating at Content Creation, Part 1

2005-08-18T12:50:00.000-07:00

One of my earlier posts talked about how difficult it was to provide enough engrossing content to keep players entertained for a long period of time. This difficulty, in my opinion, is the primary reason that MMO players get bored and quit, chase stats, or stir up trouble.

I also talked about some rather normal, unexciting, and uncreative means of squeezing the most out of your content creation dollar. Now it's time to get into the ways to "cheat" your way past these financial limitations.

One tactic is to get players to provide content for you. This can be done as directly as in Neverwinter Nights, where developers give players a toolset and let them create add-ons for the game, or as subtlely as making direct competition between players part of the game content, as World of Warcraft has done with Battlegrounds (Battlegrounds, for those three or four of you who are in the dark, is basically WoW's take on Counterstrike). Both of these methods intrigue me, especially pitting players against each other (because this kind of content creation can be done by anyone, not just those intelligent and motivated enough to learn and use a toolset).

Role-playing games are primarily about variety, and they need to offer the player the opportunity to explore new places, interact with new characters, progress though storylines, etc. These aspects of the game are what necessitate such huge amounts of content. On the other hand, games like chess or Battlefield 1942 don't need nearly as much hand-designed content to offer the same amount of replayability because of two things: 1) the game rules and mechanics allow for a near-limitless variety of actions and 2) the unpredictability (and possibly, intelligence) of a human opponent's actions keep the game fresh and challenging.

In addition to the aforementioned World of Warcraft, Guild Wars also uses player vs. player combat to keep its players entertained, although it is not a subscription game. Most MMORPGs do rely heavily on the appeal of social interaction (another way for players to provide content), but for many players, chatting and making online friends are not appealing features, just necessary evils that must be endured for the sake of playing and advancing in a persistent-character game.

Stat Whores, Coming to a Battlefield 2 Server Near You

2005-07-08T13:41:00.000-07:00

Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up.

There are ranked and unranked Battlefield 2 servers, with ranked servers hosted by EA and available for a fee to anyone else.

The difference between the two types of servers is that on ranked servers, your performances earn you rank (obvious) and allow you to unlock new weapon kits for each of the different roles (classes) in the game.

Of course, people are doing what any EQ-seasoned powergamer worth his salt would have been doing from day 1: powerleveling their stats.

Step 1: Find a medic buddy
Step 2: Find a victim on the other team (willing victims preferred, but not required)
Step 3: Kill victim (with a knife, preferably, to conserve ammo)
Step 4: Have medic buddy revive victim
Step 5: Repeat steps 3-4 for several hours
Step 6: Woot! Ding! Grats! LOL!

Sounds like a lot of fun, doesn't it? The only thing it needs to be competitive with most MMOs is to make it so that you have to stab the enemy a couple dozen times before he dies. And maybe make the enemy a goblin or something.

I'm Not Dead!

2005-07-05T13:51:00.000-07:00

I don't want to go on the cart.

Between moving, starting a new company, and getting ready for a few weeks in Europe, I've had my hands full. No time for EQII, much less the ol' blog.

Well, maybe just a little bit of time. I noticed that a lot of the loot that was previously group-only is now available as solo loot. I've also noticed that there are some non-raid-loot items out there that are substantially different from other items of the same tier. That is good. I'm still not seeing much besides the same old stat bonuses, though. After Diablo 2 raised the bar with all sorts of interesting items, it's tough to settle for the rather plain loot from EQ2, Guild Wars, and so on.

In other news, I made $13 selling 50 gold on the Station Exchange. The realization that I could exchange my Norrath currency for $2000 U.S. currency has yet to be counterbalanced by a good "integrity of the game" argument. Supporting it, however, are the recent purchase of $1500 worth of furniture and a severe case of techno-lust for the Dell 2405FPW.

And So It Begins

2005-06-28T21:29:00.000-07:00

The "Pre-Launch" for Station Exchange started yesterday. I went ahead and put up a couple things for auction. Very easy and convenient, although it is a lot more expensive than similar services. I think that if they lower the prices a little, the competition will soon be out of the EQII items business. Supposedly, the number of people wanting to move to the Exchange servers has been very high, so I expect to see more than 2 Exchange-enabled servers when the service launches for real.

There was a Producer's Letter put out not too long ago. The summary: "Hey...all that stuff you asked for in Beta...well, we don't think it's stupid and unnecessary anymore. Now give us money for our next adventure pack."

New EQ1 Expansion, Too

2005-06-15T19:52:00.000-07:00

Scheduled for September.

Here's the link: http://everquest.station.sony.com/dod/

And the marketing copy:

On the surface, as the battle between Firionia Vie and Lanys T’Vyl continues to rage throughout the lands of Nektulos, an expedition of Qeynosian miners breached the barrier of Darkhollow. Only then was the first werewolf seen and the first human bitten. Now a new evil begins to emerge from the underground; far beneath the surface of Norrath. Join EverQuest: Depths of Darkhollow and journey into a world of immorality and devastation, a world that has existed purely as a vast wilderness filled with intelligent predators, destruction and disease. Go forth with courage as the terror that lies deep within these grounds must not be allowed to spread to the surface – to Norrath.

EverQuest: Depths of Darkhollow will have you adventuring in raw, bleak caverns and facing the most formidable monsters yet! Featuring 5 new feral predators, spectacular new underground environments and countless new missions, raids and events!

Monster Missions: Play EverQuest as you never have before and see Norrath through the eyes of some of its fearsome and powerful creatures as you step into their form to do battle against their ancient foes! Change into a creature with different abilities from your own to experience. Experience EverQuest lore first hand through the eyes of another character in Monster Missions and unlock the ability to use more powerful monsters!

Spirit Shrouds: Adventure with your friends of any levels. Spirit Shrouds will allow
you to play as a creature at any level below your own. So don the form of a lower level creature and join your friends in battle while earning experience for your normal character!

Evolving Items: Earn new items that advance as you use them, becoming more powerful over time and unlocking hidden abilities and wield intelligent items with a personality of their own!

New Missions: Battle your way through over 60 new missions.

New Creatures, New Environments and New Encounters: Over 30 unique creatures and 7 Zones, 15 Small Instances, with a re-envisioned Nektulos Forest.

New Crafting, Spells, Items and More: New items and tradeskill recipes! Also new spells and alternate advancement abilities

Spirit shrouds are obviously a variation on the EQ2 mentor system, and the monster missions sound very similar to the arena combat planned for the EQ2 expansion (changing into creatures).

The evolving items feature sounds interesting to me for two reasons. One, the "personality" aspect means that items have something to offer besides stats; if this is done right, it will decrease the incentive for users to play the number-crunching game and will increase immersion. Two, it relieves users of the burden of having to play in un-fun ways to upgrade their items. By that, I mean that EQ normally requires you to repeat actions (raids, camping, grinding, etc.) dozens or hundreds of times for you to upgrade a particular item. Often, these actions are fun the first few times but grow tedious after a while. If items grow more powerful as you play in whatever way you find enjoyable, then you can have fun and advance at the same time, which is a combination all too rare in MMOs.

Expansion tidbits

2005-06-14T08:31:00.000-07:00

Aggro Me has a good summary of the info oozing out of the Fan Faire. It sounds like the days of the "Kill n monsters" quests may be numbered (heh...groan). That is definitely a good thing.

Station Exchange testing

2005-06-10T16:15:00.000-07:00

I'm moving a character to the new Station Exchange pre-release server. I'm not going to be doing any buying or selling, but it will give me a chance to get a hands-on look at the system early on.

More games to play

2005-06-06T21:33:00.000-07:00

I've seen people talking a lot about Fate recently. It's a Diablo-like game, decent-looking, and a good deal at $20. You can play the free demo until level 6 or dungeon level 3, which is about an hour. It's single-player only. Check it out.

The other game I've played a bit of recently is Mount & Blade, which I read about on Dubious Quality. This game is unfinished, and in game development terms it is little more than a "proof of concept." What makes it appealing is that battles on horseback have never been this fun. If you end up playing the game, be sure to get into some battles with a decent-size party on your side before you put it down for good. I especially enjoyed the throwing weapons, archery, and "jousting" (using a lance while on horseback). Be sure to look in the forum for the unofficial manual, as it will make it much easier to jump into the game and get the most out of it.

GunZ the Duel

2005-06-06T01:00:00.000-07:00

Supposedly this is a fun MMORPG-style 3rd person shooter. I haven't had time to check it out yet, but I definitely will soon.

http://www.gunzonline.com/

1,001 Crappy Quests

2005-06-05T17:38:00.000-07:00

I've seen lately that SOE has been advertising the number of quests, spells, etc. that have been added to the game since it launched. Almost all the ones I've seen are of the "kill X monsters" variety. I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic about EQ2 ever turning into a fun game.

Game media needs to grow up

2005-06-02T13:57:00.000-07:00

I went to the IGN Insider home page and saw a "note from the editor" that begins thusly:

"So E3 has come and gone, now the hell what?"

Maybe saying "hell" and "damn" (as IGN often does in its reviews and previews) is hip and appeals to the pimpled demographic, but it's certainly not professional. Kind of like MMO writers who editorialize with the occasional "woot!". It reminds me of the lowest-common-denominator stuff found on MTV and laddie magazines.

Update: here's some marvelous copy from the front page of Fileplanet:

Do Wookies like Cookies?
I couldn't tell you honestly, but if one wanted a cookie I'd sure as hell give him a cookie. Welcome to FilePlanet's Star Wars Weekend, were we bring you all our best and brightest Star Wars content! From incredible mods like Galactic Conquest to demos of games like Star Wars: Republic Commando - it's time to grab your lightsaber and kick some ass. We were going to post some of those golden oldies like classic X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, but sadly they wouldn't install! But there is plenty to enjoy, so get at it - and remember. Let the Wookie win.
-- ToughCookie

Guild Wars Verdict

2005-05-27T20:28:00.000-07:00

It's good, not great.

A quick summary of the bad stuff (the good you can find in a lot of other places):

The loot is boring. It gets better after the first few levels, but it still hurts the game
Skill acquisition isn't balanced. Ideally, you'd get skills in all categories at about the same pace. That way, you'd be able to play a different style all the way through the game. However, it seems that every class (not just 1 or 2) is given a bunch of useful skills in one category (e.g., fire magic for elementalists, healing for monks, blood magic for necros, etc.) and not many useful skills in other categories. As a result, everyone plays a fire elementalist for at least the first 10-15 levels (out of 20). Eventually, you round out your skill collection, but by then, you're so used to that one set of skills that there's no reason to change.
Early-level PvP is dominated by "twinks". It is possible to use max damage weapons (the most powerful in the game) in the earliest arena (level 1-10). High level players simply find a weapon with low requirements and pass it on to their new low level character. New players are thus not only overmatched in playing skill, they are totally outclassed in equipment, too. There should have been a PvP arena at the beginning where new players aren't at such a disadvantage. There should be something that guides new players into PvP; as it is, they have to seek it out or stumble on it themselves. And it should not be so easy to equip the most powerful equipment in the game.
The skill distribution problem mentioned earlier also hurts pre-20 PvP, because everyone uses the same builds.
The warrior/wizard/healer/archer gameplay is tired. PvP consists of seeing whose healer dies the fastest. And good luck when you go up against a team of 8 healers.
Calling targets for your teammates to attack is unnecessarily difficult, especially in PvP. In general, communication without a headset is primative compared to modern team-based games.
Pathing sucks. Sometimes you'll try to use a "touch" skill that requires you to get next to someone. You'll start running automatically towards the person, but you'll often end up blocked by an obstacle that you should be able to run around easily, and the skill use will be halted with no visual feedback that you were interrupted.
There's no collection of stats for PvP, beyond guild ranking stuff for end-game guild-only PvP. I'm sure plenty of people who play casually and do random PvP would love to have some sort of stats and recognition.
The storyline is mediocre at best. There are plenty of cutscenes and such to advance it, but it is meandering and nonsensical at times.

Maximizing MMO content

2005-05-24T22:10:00.000-07:00

So you have a game where people play 4+ hours a day, and you want to give them enough to keep them busy--and subscribed-- indefinitely (or for 1.32 years, or whatever your business model says).

You crunch some numbers and figure out that it takes you about $15,000 to add one quality hour's worth of content to your game. It would cost a lot more if you didn't have your game systems and tools already in place, or if you were making a game where every minute has to be engaging and polished, like Half-Life 2. But it's an online RPG, and consumer expectations and quality standards are lower.

Alright, so let's say that you're aiming to release (game or expansion, doesn't matter) with content that will keep players busy for 1 year. Your average player spends about 23 hours a week in the game, so:

23 hrs/wk * 52 weeks *$15,000/hr. = $17,940,000.

Remember, that approximation is for content alone, not interface, network, graphics, or other quite expensive pieces of the game.

Obviously, you'll never make a profit spending that kind of money on creating content. The problem gets even worse when you factor in the need to create different game experiences for different people/characters. Joe and Jerry both play a character from level 1 to level 50, and it takes them exactly a year to do so. Joe plays an evil rogue, and Jerry plays a paladin. I hate Jerry so much. And pretty much all of you who always play paladins, too. Loud-mouthed, sanctimonious, arrogant bastards in real life, the lot of you. Um, yes...so Joe needs rogue-specific quests, items, spells, trainers, guild halls, etc., and so does Jerry, that prick. Let's say that 10% (moneywise) of the content for each of them is unique: you'd push the price tag up to $19,500,000. Add in the rest of your classes, jobs, professions, races, alignments, etc., and your cost goes up far higher.

This was the problem that plagued Star Wars Galaxies: lots of breadth but not enough depth. You could take on one of a large number of professions, but most of them were not fun or useful because the content-creation money was spread too thin. Everquest ran into the same problem with its large number of starting cities and inadequate number of high-level hunting grounds.

So how do you create enough content for everyone without going broke?

Here are the possibilities:
- Get people to play less (or get people who play less)
- Get people to pay more
- Hire cheap foreign labor
- Limit variety that necessitates "duplicated" content
- Cheat

Obviously, forcing people to play less isn't going to work these days. Back when I was a young whipper-snapper, I played BBS door games. Look them up if you want to know what they are. Anyway, these games often had turn or time limits, forcing you to quit playing for the day at a certain point. I can't see the EQ2 forum-goers being too pleased with that idea, although it might be interesting to open a special-rules server that does something similar. Alternatively, you can design a game that's not meant to be played so much. Diminishing marginal returns on character advancement. No 6 hour raids. A gameplay experience so intense that you can't handle too much of it at a time (and can't play when half-asleep). You know, for the casual gamer.

People already are paying more. Monthly fees have gone up from $9.89 a month for EQ to around $15 for EQ2 and others. EQ Legends lifts some more from a few players' wallets, as do EQ2 Adventure Packs. Still, it's not nearly enough to fill the gap. I like the idea of paying more to get more, although I personally will be declining to get more for the time being.

Cheap foreign labor is rising in popularity among game publishers...pretty much linearly with foreign labor's competence and domestic labor's cost. I've heard that production of some of EQ2 art assets was outsourced to China, but I'm not certain. It wouldn't be surprising if true.

Limiting variety or scope can a great move if done wisely. If the variety doesn't give you much bang for the buck--that is, if adding 25 different starting locations and 99 different character classes costs a lot and doesn't significantly enhance an individual player's game experience--don't do it. This is a basic tenet of game design, but it is one often forgotten in RPG and MMORPG designs. Too often, these games are designed by some MUD/CRPG/stat geek who says, "Hmm...6 character attributes is good; 54 character attributes would be 9 times better!"

Yawn. This is all pretty standard stuff. It's the "cheating" methods that are the most interesting, at least in my opinion. What kind of tricks and shortcuts do developers have at their disposal? That topic is going to need its own entry.

E3 Letdown

2005-05-20T21:37:00.000-07:00

I saw the EQ2 expansion, but not at SOE's booth. It was in a "Games for Windows" section, and one of the animators (a very nice guy) was demoing it. By demoing it, I mean running around the new city and using a flying carpet (which those 0.01% of players who will ever have one must love...). I didn't get to see any Ogres climbing walls, arena combat, or anything beyond what's already in the normal game, really. They were showing that stuff in the depths of the SOE booth, but only to people with media badges.

Game developers get completely screwed over when it comes to doing interesting stuff. We don't get invites to industry parties--that's for the people who don't actually make games, like vice presidents and external producers and marketing types. And the ever-pimply gaming media. We don't get to see cool stuff at E3 (except our own) behind closed doors. We don't get to have social lives or overtime pay. It's still not as bad as being a tester, though.

Anyway, SOE may pay lip service to blog-type sites such as this one, but the reality is that they won't waste their time if it's not going to get them a 2-page spread in some magazine or a glowing (or at least, vaguely positive) preview on a major gaming site.

I did see a fairly long trailer that SOE put together. It didn't really show any actual gameplay, just a long PvPish sequence with gnomes and trolls and dragons and such. These kinds of cut-scenes would be great for spicing up quests and other dynamic events in the game; having them as trailers doesn't add anything to the game itself. Seems like a no-brainer to add this kind of cinematic to the game, but I'm not the expert.

Vanguard looked like the same boring crap. Why do these games keep putting crafting in? It's not fun. Get rid of it and replace it with something that serves the same purpose but is fun. It's not that hard. It also has "a kobold warrior". Why is the "a" necessary? Can't you just label it "kobold warrior" and add the proper article (a, an, the) in the game text as necessary? It's not a big deal, but it is indicative of the disturbing unwillingness of MMO developers to re-think accepted MMO conventions (like crafting!).

There was a game from a company called Webzen. I didn't look at it, but I heard someone narrating gameplay as follows: "See what I'm doing? I'm drinking a health potion. That's something you don't see in a typical massively multiplayer game. This is an action game!" KOREAN MMO GO GO!!!!

Hold me.

There was another game in the same area that had its own theme song, which a Britney clone and her blonde friends came on stage and sang. I remembered its name thanks to the catchy chorus (the red bra and the bounciness therein may have helped a little). Conquer Online. Please note before you download it and max out your character that I know nothing at all about this game.

EQ2 Expansion - Who'da Thunk?

2005-05-09T11:24:00.000-07:00

Here's the press release.

A couple things caught my attention:

Players of all classes can collect new creatures and pit them against each other in special arenas in the newly discovered city of Maj’Dul.

and

Arena champions: Take the form of new exotic creatures, or fight as yourself, in battles for glory against other creatures or players.

Sounds familiar...

Overall, though, it sounds like the same old typical boring crap. Take a look at the list of key features and see if any of these things aside from arena combat sound even remotely interesting:

Key Features

Arena champions: Take the form of new exotic creatures, or fight as yourself, in battles for glory against other creatures or players.
New movement: Search for treasure and find adventure in new areas by climbing up and down walls for the first time in an MMO.
Voice-over emotes: Express yourself in a battle or expand your social circle with new voice emotes.
Guild vaults: Share the loot of a hard won battle with the rest of your guild members.
Level range increase: Now play up to level 60!
New land: Discover over a dozen new zones and epic encounters.
New creatures: Test your combat skills in battles with over 40 new fearsome creatures.

It's really depressing. At least the idea of wall-climing ogres has potential comedy value. I'll be taking a look at it when I go to E3 next week (unless, like they did with EQ2, they hide it in shame), but my expectations are very low.

The same press release mentioned the second adventure pack, which is $8 instead of the $5 they charged for the first one. It's worth it, though, because this one "leads players through a series of event-based zones by using moveable planks, crates, and barrels." No word on whether the gravity gun will be a quest reward or a loot item.

Station Exchange news

2005-05-07T13:37:00.000-07:00

Here's the result of the in-game EQ2 poll that asked how people felt about Station Exchange. It is surprising that 1 out of 4 people wants to make use of it. I thought the number would be smaller.

Guild Wars Retail, or, How Not To Resist Temptation

2005-05-02T14:34:00.000-07:00

So I went to EB at the local mall to see what was new and exciting. Surfing the web just doesn't give me the same feeling, and the internet doesn't have a food court offering the delicious Super Chicken Bowl Combo, or the 50-foot long picture of a woman in underwear that graces the entrance of the upcoming Victoria's Secret store.

I went inside and asked about Guild Wars. "We just sold out 5 minutes ago," the clerk told me.

Of course, now that I couldn't get it, I had to have it. I drove to the local Best Buy, and they had dozens of copies, so I picked one up and made a mental note not to go to EB when I wanted a game (they also didn't cover PSP pre-orders, got my EQ2 DVD version in late and wouldn't give me a CD version instead, charge the highest prices of any store out there, and rip people off on trade-ins).

The game is pretty dry for quite a while. It's only when you're around level 10 or so (the cap is 20) that it starts to get fun. It's a cross between Diablo and Magic: the Gathering. And maybe a little bit of Shadowbane. Like Magic (which I played for a couple months with people at work and enjoyed, wasn't in love with it), it's not very fun until you have a bunch of options at your disposal. You earn powers by doing quests, mostly, and you can swap them out in town for what amounts to an 8-card deck in Magic (except you can use most of these powers over and over instead of discarding them). This system allows you to try out lots of different combinations, and they make a huge difference in how you play your character. That's certainly a refreshing change from MMOs (Guild Wars is a persistent-character online game, but not massively multiplayer.)

Although there is plenty of "co-op" content, it seems like the game is designed for PvP arena battles. I haven't done much of this yet, but what little I did was fun. There's a lot of strategy and teamwork needed to be successful, and fights are always "fair"--that is, both sides are prepared for the fight, and no one is doomed to failure because their stats aren't good enough.

Downsides: the loot system is below par (but this also keeps PvP more competitive), and the levels are restrictive in where they let you go (no jumping, always have to follow obvious paths, no interaction with environment, no hidden places or other secrets, etc.). The environments look very nice, though.

I'll probably post more about this game once I've had a chance to get to level 20 and see how it plays then.

Guild Wars

2005-04-27T15:18:00.000-07:00

It's out today.

The game structure is basically just Diablo 2, but with an in-game lobby for finding groups, conducting business, etc. You get a group together (or get some NPC hirelings) and go into an instanced zone to fight. Like Diablo 2, it's more of a persistent-character game that you can play with a group of other people than a massively multiplayer game.

I didn't find anything in the game that appealed to me -- didn't like the look, didn't enjoy the gameplay of any of the classes, didn't find the PvP compelling, didn't think much of the loot system, didn't fight any particularly interesting enemies.

But hey, there's no monthy fee. I think a lot of MMO-newbies will go for this game for that reason ("hey, it's World of Warcraft with no subscription cost!"), but it probably won't have much staying power.

The Politics of Banning

2005-04-27T15:08:00.000-07:00

SOE recently banned several hundred accounts for "botting," the use of programs that play the game for you.

Mythic followed suit, banning several hundred accounts for using a "radar" program that let you find and kill other players that you normally wouldn't be able to see.

This situation reminds me of politicians when an election is getting close. They all try to show how tough they are on criminals--shrinking their food portions, taking away their TVs, demanding longer sentences, etc. And the primary purpose of this exercise is not to cut down on crime, but to score points in a popularity contest.

It's not what you say, it's how you say it

2005-04-27T14:57:00.000-07:00

SOE could have introduced Station Exchange with a lot less controversy if they'd been smart about it.

First, the initial information they released suggested that it could be implemented on existing servers. Even someone who, like me, is in favor of the Exchange can recognize a stupid idea like that a mile away. The fact that you could move OFF the server if you didn't like it is just adding insult to injury. If they had put out a clear, consistent message from the beginning, it would be much easier to take Sony at their word that this system will not affect the economy of servers where anti-Exchange people play. Instead, they caused confusion, consternation and an initial hostile attitude that "Oops! That isn't what we really meant!" won't dispel.

Second, if the system had been part of the game from the start, it would be much easier for people to accept. There would have been concern about it, but people wouldn't feel like SOE was trying to pull a fast one on them.

The Competition Weighs In

2005-04-23T14:29:00.000-07:00

Mark Jacobs of Dark Age of Camelot weighs in on the Exchange:

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.asp?article_id=9464

Cynics might dismiss this as just a potshot from a competitor whose subscription numbers are waning, but it is worth looking at.

Here is a quote that summarizes the article:

"One, it will lead to frustrated players if their items get deleted or SOE has to make server changes; and two, it will also encourage the secondary market, which is exactly the opposite of what SOE is trying to do. "

The first concern is true regardless, and the second concern and the accompanying assertion aren't necessarily true.

It will encourage for-cash trading on Exchange servers, no doubt. However, SOE has been surprisingly clever in its approach to this, setting it up with a pre-emptive maneuver. They banned a large number of accounts owned by companies that sell virtual items and money. This move gives these companies a huge incentive to conduct business primarily on the Exchange instead of on all servers.

Well, wouldn't it keep them off the normal servers without Exchange, anyway? No, they would not give up such a large source of income; they would simply charge higher prices as risk to their capital investment went up. They may still do that...but when prices go up, the equilibrium point intersects at a lower point on the demand curve. In other words, the higher the price of platinum, the less people will be willing to buy. On top of that, the ready availability and enticing legality of far cheaper items on Exchange servers will shift the huge majority of these sales to those servers.

The assertion that Sony wants to prevent the secondary market is probably false. My personal guess is that SOE doesn't care one way or the other about the secondary market except in terms of whether it is good or bad for their profits. At one point they did, because the opponents of it were so vocal, and SOE wanted to make their customers happy in order to maximize subscriptions. However, as with most sensible businesses, money speaks even louder than the most prolific forum ranter. If there were no acceptance and high demand for these types of transactions, companies that offer them would not be taking in millions of dollars in revenue. Clearly, many players support the idea, but because of the stigma and potential "blacklisting" in game (or 1-star posts on the EQ2 forums) by the self-proclaimed judges of MMO ethics, they keep quiet. And being a sensible business, SOE came up with a way to keep everybody happy, except for the people who are rarely happy anyway, and make money in the process.

For a company that is so unwilling to advance in terms of actual gameplay, SOE has come up with some great features outside the game itself.
- First MMO to release an expansion pack
- First MMO to offer a premium monthly service (EQ Legends)
- First MMO to offer extensive player stats and accomplishments on the web (beginning with EQ Legends, now a separate and larger system)
- First MMO to sanction the sale of virtual items/characters

Oh, hold on a second. I'm not so sure about that last one. No, that one is definitely wrong. Let's see...
- 10six (now Project Visitor) sold "jitter packs", which were basically booster packs of random items, for cash
- Ultima Online sells built-up characters through its "Advanced Character Program"
- Project Entropia exchanges real and virtual money for a fee
- Second Life and There both sell virtual currency directly, as well as participating in and allowing other types of real-money transactions

I'm not aware of how well-received these systems were when they were implemented, but the fact that they still exist must mean that the companies behind them are satisfied that the money made from them (and possibly customers attracted/maintained because of them) outweighs the dissatisfaction/attrition of customers against them.

Of course, if designers would make these games more about skill and less about stats, this issue would be far less important.

Much Ado About Nothing

2005-04-22T18:03:00.000-07:00

Alternative title: Nerds Gone Aggro.

SOE's latest common-sense addition to the game has riled up a few people.

Bring on the lawsuits. Cancel those accounts, but be sure to give the world your Station account name first so that it can be hacked.

It's even worse than when Adventure Packs were announced (I should post on those next).

So what horrible crime against the player base did SOE commit this time? They've announced that they will be putting up new servers with a secure buy/sell mechanism that allows players to exchange virtual items and real money. There will be no effect on existing servers, except that players there get a small window to move to an "exchange-enabled" server when it goes live.

This idea makes a lot of sense to me, and it is something that I included in a game concept I did two years ago. You make the people who want to advance quickly happy, you make the people who want to sell stuff happy, and you make Sony happy because they get a % of the transaction and have fewer customer service problems.

The argument against it is that it is cheating, illegal, and morally wrong. Well, it was against the rules when there were rules against it, but now it is not, at least on the servers where it is enabled. And even when it was illegal, there was a thriving black market that Sony was essentially helpless to fight. For the player who doesn't like his game "polluted," this change will have practically no effect...aside from shunting away the undesirables to other servers.

I see this issue as being similar to the "War on Drugs." In both cases, you have a group of people who want to legislate moral behavior, even if no one is being hurt. "But this will increase bot farming!" is the equivalent of "But drugs make people do bad things!" If you do something that negatively effects someone else and is against the law, you should be punished for that, not for whatever someone claims led up to that.

The anti-exchange crowd seems to think that your motives for playing a MMO must be "pure" for you to be allowed to play. Even though farming is allowed by the rules, you're WRONG for doing it, according to them. If you decide that the sole reason you want to play is to buy and resell items on the market ("tunnel rat" was the EQ1 term), something that the rules allow, people will whine incessantly that it's WRONG. If I decide that I want to put a group together that spends 24 hours a day hitting all the raid-level monsters in the game and then putting the loot up for sale (or giving it to people who didn't "earn" it), the anti-exchange bunch would rail against me and talk about how I wasn't playing the game right, etc. Or maybe I could charge real money for admission to that guild (which has been done, and is within the rules as well--or more accurately, is outside SOE's domain).

All these actions have the same effect as selling in-game items for money; they let people who "didn't earn it" advance faster than people who put in the requisite time and effort and who formed "legitimate" uber-guilds (i.e., guilds that exist to get loot for themselves only). And all these actions are perfectly legal. And the anti-exchange group hates them all.

Why is their reaction so hostile, escpecially in cases where it does not affect them personally in the least? It's because they play the game primarily for the feeling of accomplishment it gives, not because it is fun to play or because they like roleplaying or whatever. When they see other people with much more virtual wealth/status and putting in far less effort, it doesn't seem fair to them and they get upset. The MMO mentality can be summed up in this equation:

Success = time spent + guild quality

When people see others succeeding without putting in the "work" and/or joining the right guild, it makes them angry...because it cheapens the days upon days of "work" they've done to improve their character and get into/put together that elite guild. You see the same attitude from members of top guilds, who resent "zerg guilds" that can accomplish all the same feats without having the great equipment, superior planning, etc. You can't tell them, "it's just a game" because when people derive feelings of self-worth and accomplishment from anything, it is important to them. (This is another problem that results when you make a game to appeal to hardcore players.)

The item buyers and the anti-item-buyers are the same in this regard; one group buys virtual status/wealth with money, the other with time and effort. Pouring extensive amounts of real resources into playing a game doesn't seem like a healthy or well-adjusted way to live, in the first place...and getting upset because someone has a richer/more powerful character than you (on another server, no less) without "earning" it is going to be an exercise in frustration, because it is going to happen regardless of what SOE does.

If you don't like it, there's another game where success = time spent.

Archaelogists Exploit Design Flaw, Get Phat Lewtz

2005-04-15T00:51:00.000-07:00

Getting loot without having to kill anything first is heresy.

The article doesn't say anything about the AC or stat bonuses.

Solo loot better...slightly

2005-04-14T18:42:00.000-07:00

Maybe it's just taken me a while to notice, but there's been some work done on making solo loot more interesting. Previously, it was limited it to useless "vendor trash," or items that are useless aside from the money NPC vendors will give you for them. There were also a few quest-starting items, which were worth even less because of their minimal rewards.

I've seen some items with actual stat bonuses and such dropping now, even if they are still not items that anyone would use. It's a step in the right direction.

However, the typical solo loot is still very dull, especially the normal monster drops. You get the same 2 or 3 junk items from every monster of a given type, plus the "lore and legend" items. These items are the same from level 1 to level 50...the higher level ones are worth more than lower level ones, but they have the same looks, the same names, the same drop rates, etc. For example, every skeleton in the game drops "a skeletal hand" as its common drop and "a femur" as its rare drop.

This is bad for two reasons. First, in a game where you do and see the same things over and over for hundreds of hours, you need as much variety as you can get. The loot system is one opportunity to add variety (and at a very low development cost, too). Second, there is no feeling of progression derived from the loot system. You get more powerful, you should be getting better/more interesting loot. In EQ2, though, the high level "common" stuff looks exactly like the low level "common" loot, except in the Sell Item interface, where the NPC vendor will offer different amounts of money based on the item's level (which is otherwise invisible to the user).

Because EQ2 and games like it rely so heavily on the appeal of character advancement, all the game systems that are related to character advancement (such as loot) need to be done right. Diablo 2, for example, succeeded almost solely on the strength of its loot system alone, as the rest of the game was average. My guess is that most of the problems with the loot system (there are some more mentioned here) are a result of the game being shipped before it was done. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that a lot of the items just had stats generated randomly, and the intent was to go back and fix them later...which of course never happened. If not, then they were certainly designed to be balanced, rather than interesting.

You shouldn't create balanced systems with the intent of adding the fun later. You should make fun systems and then balance them afterwards.

Does IP matter for MMOs?

2005-04-11T09:53:00.000-07:00

To quote the Reverend: "Short answer: yes, with an 'if'. Long answer: no, with a 'but'."

Let's look at the mainstream MMOs that use existing IP (intellectual property):
- World of Warcraft (Warcraft games)
- Sims Online (Sims games)
- Matrix Online (Matrix movies)
- Everquest II (Everquest)
- Lineage II (Lineage)
- Asheron's Call 2 (Asheron's Call)

Three of these games are sequels to existing MMOs. All three of them failed to attract many people other than those playing the original. When Lineage II came out, for example, Lineage lost about as many subscribers as Lineage II gained. The same is true of Asheron's Call 2 and Everquest 2. This seems to be a fairly simple and logical sequence. The lesson? Don't make MMO sequels. Or don't make dull MMO sequels that change little about the original game besides the graphics, at least.

My guess is that the numbers for Matrix Online are pretty weak, probably comparable to the Sims Online or worse. Both these games are based on successful non-MMOs; if TMO and TSO were not MMOs, they could probably sell pretty well even though they are not very good games (as Enter the Matrix did), just because of their names. What it is that makes people willing to buy bad non-MMOs but not bad MMOs? Is it because people are pickier when they potentially have to pay more money in the form of monthy fees? Is it because some people consciously avoid MMOs? Is it because MMOs aren't advertised as much as other games and rely on a hardcore, plugged-in segment of the market? I'm curious.

That brings us to Warcraft. It, too, is based on a successful non-MMO. However, there are some key differences between it and TMO/TSO. First, Warcraft already had a large, devoted online player base, so the jump to MMO was not as drastic. The big problem with the Sims IP is that it is not suited for a MMO, as the Warcraft IP is. The Sims is just a well-known name for playing with virtual dolls; there is no background story or reason for the world to exist. There are no familiar characters or places, just a bunch of user-created content that is simply not compelling for pretty much anyone but the users who created it. Warcraft has (relatively) well-developed characters, story, settings, etc. The Matrix has these things, but critical disdain for Enter the Matrix and the last two Matrix movies hurt the appeal of the Matrix IP. Plus, World of Warcraft is simply a much better game than TSO and TMO, especially in terms of how easy it is to get into.

Here's what I would conclude: When you make a MMO based on existing IP, the IP only benefits you if your game is good and the IP suits your game. There's no doubt that WoW is more popular because it's Warcraft and not just some patchwork of fantasy cliches (sorry, Everquest). But I think if it were as dull and unwelcoming as TMO, the IP wouldn't save it--a big difference from non-MMOs.

EQ2 - Latest Update

2005-04-08T22:29:00.000-07:00

Lots of changes, as has been the case with every "big patch" that comes out about once a month nowadays.

Some good stuff that caught my attention:
- Quest Paths: there are some new quests that are set up in a progression. You finish the first quest in a series, and then you're able to get a second, related quest (possibly from a different NPC). This is a suggestion I made [EQ2 forums access required] a few weeks ago. Was it my suggestion that prompted this addition? Not likely, but it's nice having things you want put into the game regardless.

- More Accessible Instanced Zones: Artificial restrictions are always a bad thing; designers should work around them as much as possible, using other methods to ensure game balance. From what I am reading, there are a bunch of places that now only require one group member to be "flagged" for the whole group to get in. This change definitely makes it easier to get people together for one of these excursions; previously, you had to run through the quest all over again for your groupmates who hadn't done it yet (or just go somewhere else, which is what happened 99% of the time).

- The Plague event: I don't know much about this, but it looks like a serverwide quest. Apparently, a plague is affecting everyone (including NPCs), and there is some way of eradicating it. I remember Horizons had something similar, where you would catch it from anyone you got near that had it, and only Dragon PCs could cure it. It was annoying, but maybe EQ2's handled it better (by not draining your stats horribly, for instance).

There are also some additions to the trade skill system, but at this point, any effort put into the existing system is pretty much a waste. The sooner it's scrapped and redone, the better.

EQ2 even cheaper

2005-04-05T19:33:00.000-07:00

It's 16.99 at Outpost. I imagine that they make far more money off subscriptions, per user, than retail sales. Add in adventure pack sales, web extras and word-of-mouth sales, and it's not hard to see why SOE is taking a hit at retail to get more people playing.

My guess is that the only people who bite are the ones who are already playing an EQ-like MMO (FFXI, EQ, AC, AC2, DAOC) and now have an excuse to try a different game (it's cheap, 30 days free). I don't think a lot of people who never played an MMO before will buy it.

Bringing Those Fickle Casual Gamers to EQ2

2005-04-03T23:32:00.000-07:00

They aren't powering through the content, that's true. They come with another problem, though. They get bored easily. They move on to the latest and greatest game with nary a look back. Instead of whining for months on your message boards (and keeping their accounts active the entire time), they just stop playing and move on to greener pastures.

What can you do to hold their interest (and keep collecting their money through subscription fees and expansions)?

The most effective solution may be to offer varied types of gameplay. If you've made a game that offers nothing but combat, and that combat does not even appeal to regular gamers, you'll have a hard time attracting a large player base. Add sub-games or other unique content that offers the player a different experience but the same feeling of advancement as the main game. These additions can attract players who get bored with the main game or who aren't particularly enthusiastic about it in the first place. (If they are poorly designed or implemented, however, they are a waste of resources.)

Let's say your main game is all about real-time combat. Have secondary games that focus on strategy, management, social interaction, etc. Each game should still help the player advance in some way; you shouldn't make players have to choose between having fun and advancing.

EQ2-specific examples:
- A full-featured virtual pet system. The pets themselves are already in the game, but they are just decoration right now. In this sub-game players would have the ability to train, feed, discipline, etc. their pets. The pets would grow and advance, and players could take them to the local pet track & field center and compete against other players' pets in multiple types of competitions. Spectators could place bets, and other designated players could act as the bookies. There could be special "pet dungeons" and quests where your pet does all the fighting, and you give commands. In addition to getting pet-specific loot and other rewards, your pet could get experience/loot for you as well.

- The ability to own a specialized business. Instead of merely setting up shop in your inn room, you could open a casino, a racetrack (see above), or any number of potentially fun ventures. You'd have to pay various startup and upkeep fees, rent, etc. and would need to bring in a decent amount of business to stay profitable, or you could just do it as a hobby and fund it with your loot from adventuring. There are plenty of great spots already existing in the cities to put these businesses.

- Arena battles. You face off against a semi-random NPC or NPCs, and your win/loss stats are kept. You could fight through Mortal Kombat-like ladders, winning prizes if you reach the top, and perhaps gain status points as you would for doing guild quests. There could be special items sold only to players who are successful in arena battles. This system would provide "instant action" and allow player to advance in a way they don't with the main game

- A Magic-like strategy game. You find the "cards" (or whatever you want them to be) either as the normal "collectibles" lying around, in stores, as loot, as prizes for arena battles or petcompetitions, etc. There could be unofficial and official tournaments with prizes, rankings, etc. You could have special businesses players can open that can host these games or sell official packs/decks (obtained from NPCs, which will sell to you if you have the right business license).

These are just a few examples of additions to gameplay that would attract a different sort of people to the game, or that would maintain the interest of people for whom the combat-centric main game has gotten stale.

Why You Want Casual Gamers

2005-04-02T21:08:00.000-08:00

Traditionally, MMOs have appealed mostly to the people who can play them dozens of hours every week. This is not an optimal business model.

Here's the pattern: first you spend years making a MMO and filling it with content. Within weeks, the hardcore gamers have powered through the content it took you years to make, and they're loudly complaining and clamoring for more.

When the genre was not as competitive, you could just release an overpriced expansion pack and make big bucks off these people. Now, however, the industry standard is to provide continuous "free" updates; if you don't, you look bad (WoW). Expansions have to make significant gameplay changes/improvemnts; if they just add new content, people aren't happy.

The most obvious solution is to build a game that appeals to the kind of person who won't "win" the game so quickly. The ideal situation for a MMO is to have lots of happy subscribers and to have nobody online. Of course, this situation is about as real as the ol' frictionless pulley of negligible mass. The closest you can get is having a bunch of subscribers who are pleased with the game but who play only a few hours a week--casual gamers.

Why is this good?
- Lower server/bandwidth/maintainance costs
- Content lasts longer
- Bigger potential market
- Less complaining/bad word-of-mouth

WoW is somewhat appealing to casual gamers, at least compared to other games in the genre, and this (in my estimation) a large reason for its eye-popping subscription numbers. The Sims Online attempted to appeal to this group, but it lacks the necessary instant gratification and arcade action.

EQ2 is starting to try to appeal to this group, but it strikes me that they simply do not understand how. They've been focusing on pleasing the hardcore people for so long that all their experts are not of much use in this area. They need good video game designers, not experienced MMO designers. And the "Everquest" name probably hurts more than it helps among the casual crowd, who know the franchise primarily as something that causes fat, pale-faced geeks to disappear into their rooms for weeks, breaks up marriages, and kills Koreans who play too long.

Quest Rewards Going No-Trade

2005-04-02T02:30:00.000-08:00

The upcoming update to EQ2 will change most/all quest reward items to no-trade. This is exactly what WoW does; quest items in WoW are "Binds when picked up".

There are good reasons for doing this: it lets the quest designer give people good items as rewards without making it so that anyone can walk up to the broker and pick one up for a few silver (which makes other items of the same type useless, dropping demand for crafted and looted items). It also encourages people to do quests for the items they want instead of just buying them.

It's an idea that works well in WoW, but it will have some disadvantages in EQ2. EQ2 is basically copying one part of WoW's overall system exactly, but without the rest of the system it doesn't work nearly as well. Here's why:

- Unlike in WoW, quests in EQ2 typically don't give good rewards right now. And given the work it would take to update all of them to be worthwhile, we can safely assume that 99% of crappy quest rewards will still be crappy after this update. And now you can't sell them on the broker, either.

- This wouldn't be so bad if NPC vendors would pay reasonable amounts of money for these items. They don't (unlike WoW).

- As a result, people won't want to do quests, unless they know for sure what they are getting at the end. In WoW you are almost always told ahead of time what the quest reward is, so it isn't a problem there. EQ2 players will instead flock to spoiler web sites to find the reward to see if the quest is a waste of time or not...and while they are there, they'll look up the spoiler for all the quest steps, too.

- If people approach quests this way, not only are you breaking immersion by encouraging them to stop playing and go do research, you're also defeating the whole point of quests. Instead of venturing into something unknown and exciting, people are going to look at quests (even more) as a series of tedious chores they must complete, because they were (essentially) forced to look up the quest/reward and already know what happens in each stage of the quest. They are also much less likely to appreciate any story elements, NPC personality, etc. when they do quests like this.

This is why I am concerned about EQ2 copying things from other games wholesale. Some things, like the mentoring system, are well-executed and have huge upsides and almost no downsides. Other things, like the solo instances and this upcoming change, should be refined and thought out more before they are implemented.

EQ2, the MMO Whipping Boy

2005-03-31T12:59:00.000-08:00

A lot of the criticisms I have about EQ2 are true of most/all other MMOs, too. I'm picking on EQ2 because:
1) It has the best technical foundation
2) SOE has more money/resources with which to improve it
3) SOE is "losing" right now, which means they will probably be more willing to try new things. Blizzard, on the other hand, has adopted the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality, which means that WoW will probably remain a stale EQ-Diablo hybrid that offers nothing new to the genre.
4) It's the only MMO I still play, so it's easier for me to comment on it

I think the main problem with MMOs is that the core gameplay is based on an increasingly obsolete genre.

Adventure games have a similar problem: fifteen years ago, click-on-every-pixel gameplay--found in titles like King's Quest--was standard fare. There wasn't anything out there that offered the same features (good graphics, good story) and was significantly more compelling in terms of gameplay mechanics. Nowadays, good graphics and a good story are found in titles across all genres, leaving the adventure genre with only niche appeal because its core gameplay is not inherently fun to most people.

EQ2 and nearly all other MMOs have their roots in CRPGs and MUDs. The basic gameplay mechanic in these genres is: push a button, and see the result of combat. It is about 10% strategy, 20% luck, and 70% foregone conclusion.

It is the last element that is most damning. In EQ2 and other games of its ilk, you almost always know the result of the upcoming battle ahead of time. The game encourages you, through faster experience rewards and the threat of penalties for dying, to fight only monsters you know you will beat. This design flaw leads to the phenomenon known as "grinding". Players will repeat the same boring actions for hours at time (sometimes over a period of months/years) because they want to improve their character quickly.

What makes the gameplay in the MMO genre increasingly niche is that it, like the CRPGs and MUDs it came from, relies almost solely on the appeal of character advancement, in the same way that the adventure genre relied on good story and graphics. It's still using the old roll-a-die-and-win-because-your-stats-are-good mechanic, which your average casual gamer doesn't find particularly appealing. Character advancement and persistent characters are still very appealing to the large majority of gamers; however, other genres have adopted the character advancement aspect of the game and have paired it with more popular game mechanics. For example, Deus Ex's character advancement system gives your character advantages, but the results of enemy encounters are not a foregone conclusion because success is largely dependent on user skill. Inevitably, there will be an online game that offers both skill-based gameplay (rather than stats-based) and persistent character advancement. (I've written up a concept for one, and I hope to make it someday.)

Just So We're On the Same Page

2005-03-31T10:04:00.000-08:00

My EQ2 account is active. My WoW account is canceled. I could put up long entries criticizing WoW, but honestly it's not worth the effort. There are many good aspects of EQ2, one of which is that SOE is very active in trying to improve it. It's just that a lot of the improvements either don't really address the original problems, tackle relatively low-priority issues (e.g., new mail system), cater to people who are already happy with the game, or cause as many problems as they solve. I'm not going to list everything I like about EQ2, at least not right now. Once I get to the "offering solutions" and "cool ideas" phase, some of them will be mentioned as things to build on.

I am hoping by listing every problem of significance, and then going through and explaining them clearly and offering solutions, it will be easier to determine what improvements will best accomplish SOE's goals: attracting customers from other games, appealing to a wider range of customers, preventing existing subscribers from canceling accounts, etc. Right now it seems like they are flailing without a clear focus, mostly trying to emulate WoW's success (which I think is temporary) by imitating some of its features.

Kicking It When It's Down

2005-03-31T01:17:00.000-08:00

I'm going to start out with an overview of what's wrong with EQ2. I'll get into detail with each complaint in later entries, because I want to explain my reasoning for each complaint thoroughly. After that, I plan on suggesting solutions. If I still have enough motivation when that's done, I'll start throwing out the "cool ideas" for additions to the game.

Without further ado:

1. Interface - Boring look, lots of long lists due to poor organization (buy/sell in particular), too many numbers and words and not enough icons/pictures (skills, persona), some windows too big and clunky (esp. at lower resolution). Feels like a placeholder interface that was slapped together in a couple days.

2. Loot - item stats too similar to one another, not enough special/unique effects, not enough variety in "vendor junk" drops, no use for most "vendor junk" drops, too much restriction on what drops for solo/small groups, no special ("named") monsters for soloers to kill. Tiers for armor/weapons enforces the "this game is a set of rules you have to follow and memorize" feeling (rather than the "this game is an alternate reality" feeling that it probably should be aiming for). People play these games primarily for the persistent character aspect (certainly not for the enjoyable game mechanics), so it is critical for the loot system to be appealing.

3. Monsters - too many ordinary/boring monsters (e.g. life leeches). Too many small, unimposing monsters (e.g. life leeches). Not enough variety in monster animations. Not enough particle/special effects on monster models. Humanoid monsters need more texture variety/impressiveness in clothes/armor.

4. Level design - world is too monochromatic, especially in certain dungeons. All green or all brown. Too many invisible barriers ("this game feels like a set of rules" will be a common theme on this blog). World is excessively incontiguous (loads, islands, bells), feels like you are picking a zone off a menu rather than traversing a real world. Loading screens are a missed oppotunity to alleviate this a little. Not enough landmarks and special areas, both in normal zones and in dungeons. New instances are throwaway zones that look like an intern made them in a couple hours.

5. Tradeskills - game mechanics are terribly tedious and not even remotely fun, ever. If not for the benefit that it provides to the persistent character in the metagame, no one would ever choose to participate. Beyond the actual mechanics, quests and individuality of characters are poorly done.

6. Player art - Humans look like peasants instead of heroes. Not enough variety in armor looks.

7. Misc. art - Not enough variety in "autoattack" combat animations. Lower LODs need to be improved (especially since many people are near the lower end of the required hardware specs). Particle effects in combat are overdone. Effects should have a better visual correlation to the name of the power that triggered them, and elaborate effects should be reserved for special instances. Right now it's a veritable orgy of effects that usually adds little to the user experience. For melee characters, animations are a better way of increasing visual coolness than particle effects. Pet animations aren't done.

8. NPCs - no depth to NPCs. Almost all feel like props. Defeats the purpose of voiceover (which itself is more unintentionally amusing than impressive). Having 5 NPCs that feel like real people is better than having 50 of the current type.

9. Writing - sloppy and low quality, with few exceptions. Also helps defeat the purpose of voiceover. Spelling and grammar errors galore, in dialog, quest journal, books, etc. Frogloks mangle the King's English, not quite as badly as the Ultima series did, though. Having collectible books = good idea. Having poorly written collectible books and a visually unimpressive reading interface = waste of time. Very little freedom in choice of dialog responses (NWN was good with this) - adds to the feeling that your character's path is "on rails" and you just need to put in 4000 hours of work to get to the end.

10. Bugs - It's 4 months after release and the problem with invisible monsters is still there. That's a pretty aggravating bug that affects gameplay significantly, and it still hasn't been addressed. Releasing the game early was a bad decision, for many reasons--bugs, WoW was going to get far more people regardless, unrefined game mechanics, unbalanced game systems (which are now 10x harder to balance and refine because certain things you can't change much after release), etc.

11. Solo unfriendly - the game was designed to cater to guilds and groups. Now SOE is tripping over itself trying to do a 180 and be like WoW. Still, solo loot sucks, solo quests suck, solo instances suck, and tradeskilling, while able to be done solo now, sucks. There is very little in EQ2 that makes the solo player want to come back for more; they either get a guild or stop playing. The typical Diablo2/CRPG player doesn't want to have to interact regularly with other people in order to play the game in a fun way. That is why WoW is mass market and EQ and EQ2 are niche games.

12. Combat-centric - There's nothing fun or interesting to do in the game besides combat (harvesting can be fun in that sick "I'm unemployed and want to feel like I'm working" sort of way). Exploring not worthwhile because of limited landmass (particularly with restrictions on travel to the higher level zones), need for a group to explore dungeons, exp debt inevitability, not enough interesting things to see or do while exploring. And tradeskills suck (have I said this already?). There are many possibilities for improvement in this area, which I will discuss in the "cool ideas" phase.

I'm probably missing a few things that I had thought of earlier, but I'll just go back and put them in when I remember them.

Stumbling Out of the Gate

2005-03-29T18:12:00.000-08:00

Everquest II is not doing well.

There are several ways to tell when a game is not doing well:

1. A free trial appears on Fileplanet.
2. The price drops from $49.99 to $29.99 just 4 months after release. (Collector's Edition, originally $89.99 (!), is now $39.99.)
3. Everybody's playing the other game.
4. The publisher has to beg players to keep playing.

The first step in getting the game back on track is figuring out why people don't like it. The first step is NOT immediately copying everything people like about other games and shoehorning it into yours.

Exhibit A (mimicks WoW's mail system almost to a fault)
Exhibit B (similar to City of Heroes' Sidekick system)
Exhibits C, D, and E (catering to solo players, like WoW. Making instanced zones a bigger part of the game, like WoW...and Anarchy Online before it. Making all items stick to you--"attuned"--once you use them, just like all items in WoW become "soulbound".)

So what is it that people don't like about EQ2? That's a long answer, and it deserves its own entry.

First Post!

2005-03-29T17:39:00.000-08:00

The traditional meaningless boast that precedes all MMO discussion.