www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Shooter-like MMOs
I'm reading news from the Leipzig Games Convention, with a description of new games announced or presented there. Most of them are shooters, most are multiplayer, and more and more of them got rid of linear levels and replaced them with a more open-ended free gameplay, often including exploration of zones. In short, shooters become more and more similar to MMORPGs. The most extreme convergence is probably Hellgate: London. From the other side games like Tabula Rasa are nominally MMOs, but gameplay resembles a shooter. I sense a collision ahead.
First victim of that collision will probably be Tabula Rasa. Not that this is a bad game. But with so many shooters offering MMO-like elements, who wants to pay a monthly fee for a MMO with shooter-like elements? I don't know whether Hellgate London is actually better than Tabula Rasa, but I'm willing to bet that it will sell much better. Action games with monthly fees won't fare very well.
It's time for MMORPGs to take a history lesson: The original Dungeons & Dragons from TSR derived from squad-based tabletop strategy games. In fact TSR stood for Tactical Studies Rules at the time. Tactics are the very heart of RPGs, all that pretending to be an elf only came later. MMORPGs should move towards offering more tactical gameplay, and try less to look like action games.
- posted by Tobold @ 8:09 PM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
I entirely agree. And playing BF2142 like a madman right now doesn't help disagreeing with you either.
Although BF doesn't have zones or levels or anything, but there definitely is player progression, you have this friends list where you see what servers your friends are on right now too, XP are called "career points" and awards are something not even WoW really has, it's closer to the reward system of LOTRO (specific badges and pins for specific achievements, although there are no special titles).
And exactly that persistence, together with an awesome game balance, is what makes the game motivating to play for hours and hours. I feel reminded of the earliest days of playing WoW, it's that good.
Although BF doesn't have zones or levels or anything, but there definitely is player progression, you have this friends list where you see what servers your friends are on right now too, XP are called "career points" and awards are something not even WoW really has, it's closer to the reward system of LOTRO (specific badges and pins for specific achievements, although there are no special titles).
And exactly that persistence, together with an awesome game balance, is what makes the game motivating to play for hours and hours. I feel reminded of the earliest days of playing WoW, it's that good.
I agree. The main problem with TB is that you don't really need to team, so the tactics you use are only for yourself. Group tactics against other groups creates a far more dynamic game experience (which is why I enjoy RvR).
"One of the constant criticisms leveled against most current MMORPGs is that they only reward time spent in game"
Isn't this the same for any activity? You won't win a golf championship if you only play a couple of hours on a Sunday now and again.
Put a lot of time into something and you would expect to get more out of it (financially or otherwise) than someone who is not willing to invest the time.
Like a lot of players, I have family and a job to go to every day; I don't cry that I don't have the time to join a serious raiding community - my priorities lie elsewhere.
Why begrudge someone who spends 10 hours a day playing WoW the rewards they get for that time commitment?
Isn't this the same for any activity? You won't win a golf championship if you only play a couple of hours on a Sunday now and again.
Put a lot of time into something and you would expect to get more out of it (financially or otherwise) than someone who is not willing to invest the time.
Like a lot of players, I have family and a job to go to every day; I don't cry that I don't have the time to join a serious raiding community - my priorities lie elsewhere.
Why begrudge someone who spends 10 hours a day playing WoW the rewards they get for that time commitment?
# posted by 
: 3/10/07 11:26
: 3/10/07 11:26
Oh I don't know what happened but my comment applies to the post above, not this one, doh!
I remember playing squad based tabletop games in my youth (can't remember the names now).
One big problem with them, was every turn took an age to complete, which is probably why I switched to D&D and other Role Playing Games, but my heart still lies with wargames.
I remember playing squad based tabletop games in my youth (can't remember the names now).
One big problem with them, was every turn took an age to complete, which is probably why I switched to D&D and other Role Playing Games, but my heart still lies with wargames.
# posted by : 3/10/07 11:36
: 3/10/07 11:36
The problem with tactical gameplay is that it requires thought, planning, and time. That's fine in a single player environment, but throw in four or five other people in an online environment and the whole gameplay model bogs right down. Action gameplay doesn't have this issue, which is why games like Counterstrike and Halo are so popular -- players are never waiting on other player's decision making.
It's not at all surprising MMOs are heading towards a more action oriented gameplay style. I don't think it's a good thing, but I can see why people are trying it.
Sadly the 'auto-attack + skill use' model started by Everquest and exemplified by World of Warcraft will likely remain the most successful gameplay style for MMOs for some time to come. It offers a balance between decision making (skill use) and keeping things moving without decision making (auto-attack) that keeps group combat going without robbing it of all tactical value whatsoever. An inelegant solution, perhaps, but it works for the masses.
It's not at all surprising MMOs are heading towards a more action oriented gameplay style. I don't think it's a good thing, but I can see why people are trying it.
Sadly the 'auto-attack + skill use' model started by Everquest and exemplified by World of Warcraft will likely remain the most successful gameplay style for MMOs for some time to come. It offers a balance between decision making (skill use) and keeping things moving without decision making (auto-attack) that keeps group combat going without robbing it of all tactical value whatsoever. An inelegant solution, perhaps, but it works for the masses.
# posted by : 3/10/07 17:55
: 3/10/07 17:55
I can't say that I agree with that MMOGRPGs should move towards a specific game style, be it more tactical or something else.
I welcome more diversity in game styles and game mechanics and they will appeal to different types of audiences and MMOG games should expand in various directions. There will definitely be intersections when other game types expand more towards MMO and MO (exluding the massively part) and world persistance. Which business and price models will work better? Remains to be seen - in general I think there has not been much too many options offered here, at least in the West.
As for the specific cases of Tabula Rasa and Hellgate: London - both will have subscription fees when it comes to the "MMO" part and content updates as I recall. Only the base single player and MO game is what you get for the retail price.
Hellgate: London will likely sell more retail copies I think, the Diablo background will probably help more to sell this game than Richard Garriott's name on Tabula Rasa. But that is from someone who has never played a Richard Garriott game before TR and never has played Diablo either...
Post a Comment
I welcome more diversity in game styles and game mechanics and they will appeal to different types of audiences and MMOG games should expand in various directions. There will definitely be intersections when other game types expand more towards MMO and MO (exluding the massively part) and world persistance. Which business and price models will work better? Remains to be seen - in general I think there has not been much too many options offered here, at least in the West.
As for the specific cases of Tabula Rasa and Hellgate: London - both will have subscription fees when it comes to the "MMO" part and content updates as I recall. Only the base single player and MO game is what you get for the retail price.
Hellgate: London will likely sell more retail copies I think, the Diablo background will probably help more to sell this game than Richard Garriott's name on Tabula Rasa. But that is from someone who has never played a Richard Garriott game before TR and never has played Diablo either...
# posted by : 3/10/07 18:44
: 3/10/07 18:44<< Home
