Visit Scenic Northern Tamriel...
A bit more about Skyrim...
- The mage guild quest line seemed a bit short, even if it wasn't time-wise, and I've been inducted into a circle of werewolves. I have yet to do too much with other guilds yet.
- I've killed... okay, helped kill several dragons. Some days they seem to come out of the woodwork. Town guards help a lot. The one that tried to jump me at the mage guild picked a bad spot just because it gave me convenient cover (I'll do whatever I can to avoid fighting one in the open, thanks).
- I love the dwemer ruins, though I sort of wish there were some ayleid ones.
- The spells generally look and work well, though I do miss being able to make my own.
- A companion may get in the way sometimes, but they make fights soooo much easier. A lot of fights in general are tough if you just run in and try to slug it out.
- That was a tall mountain, but I wonder if it was really 7000 steps...
I'm enjoying the mountain vistas. The game in general feels somewhat liberating. I can start it up and pick something to do and head off. If I find something else strikes my fancy along the way, there's no real pressure not to detour. And I've found some interesting things just hiking from one destination to another. As much as I also like tight, well-told stories, this more relaxed pace feels pleasant too.
So, naturally my time with SWTOR has me thinking about MMOs. They're doing another beta weekend this coming, so I may see more still. But mostly I'm questioning myself on how "multiplayer" an MMO should be.
What I perceive as the current standard - what's used in WoW, but I'm reasonably sure didn't originate there - is to make content from level 1 up to maximum soloable (but doable in a group). Then the "endgame" at level cap introduces more group-required content in the form of "dungeons" and "raids."
For the most part, I'd argue that works. It does have ups and downs, though.
Questing and leveling, in my opinion, goes more smoothly and quickly done alone anyway. And that seems the way a majority tackle it. When you're doing that in a group, you're either waiting on someone to catch up and read quest text or speeding through it yourself to not hold someone else up. Two people usually makes solo content fast and easy - which can be nice, but doesn't teach a player what a challenging fight is actually like. And then there's coordinating schedules if you actually want to level up with someone that can be difficult.
Example: Running a druid/warlock pair in WoW, I barely see more than 3/5 combo points and he only sees a tick or two of DoT damage before something dies. The company can be nice, but my shaman (who was started notably later) has out-leveled the pair easily.
Also, as a game goes on, this makes for a long "learning" period. If you start up in WoW now, you have questing to do across Azeroth, through Outland, over Northrend, and back before you're level 85 and can even start to play with max-level characters in a meaningful way. There have been some games that try to adjust and normalize characters up or down in numbers to group together, but the examples I've seen (briefly, I admit) have not been satisfying to me.
And now games are pushing story. That tends to mean weaving a story into that leveling stretch because that's where it fits best. And this seems a good thing, but that raises further issues on how to offer inclusion to groups. I've seen how TOR does this and it works for me about half the time. If they clean up those times when party members are "not invited" into cut scenes, there's still the question of how multiple characters of the same class behave in them (and I want to test that). Even so, I can't help but think the story is going to taper off at the endgame because it pretty much has to. Players can and will chew through content faster than companies can push it out.
And Guild Wars 2 has been pitching it's personal story, with the emphasis seeming to be on "personal." That may lead to an experience that's a bit more unique than TOR's, but I have yet to see how that game will address the desire to get friends in on it.
So at the moment, it looks like this may be the best approach, but is it? I know some games have required more group content earlier, but I haven't played many of those to compare. How soloable should an MMO be?
I do think the current setup where you "graduate" from solo play to group play to larger-group play seems biased toward the latter, almost as if saying someone who wants to play solo isn't as good a player. And there seems some acknowledgment of that. Blizzard is (and has been) making some effort to make more to do at endgame for solo players too - daily quest zones like the Molten Front and upgraded Darkmoon Faire or the MoP pet battle system. Still, if you want the best loot, you need to be raiding, and that can sting a little to someone who doesn't have a taste for that sort of play.
I wonder where things are going...
- The mage guild quest line seemed a bit short, even if it wasn't time-wise, and I've been inducted into a circle of werewolves. I have yet to do too much with other guilds yet.
- I've killed... okay, helped kill several dragons. Some days they seem to come out of the woodwork. Town guards help a lot. The one that tried to jump me at the mage guild picked a bad spot just because it gave me convenient cover (I'll do whatever I can to avoid fighting one in the open, thanks).
- I love the dwemer ruins, though I sort of wish there were some ayleid ones.
- The spells generally look and work well, though I do miss being able to make my own.
- A companion may get in the way sometimes, but they make fights soooo much easier. A lot of fights in general are tough if you just run in and try to slug it out.
- That was a tall mountain, but I wonder if it was really 7000 steps...
I'm enjoying the mountain vistas. The game in general feels somewhat liberating. I can start it up and pick something to do and head off. If I find something else strikes my fancy along the way, there's no real pressure not to detour. And I've found some interesting things just hiking from one destination to another. As much as I also like tight, well-told stories, this more relaxed pace feels pleasant too.
So, naturally my time with SWTOR has me thinking about MMOs. They're doing another beta weekend this coming, so I may see more still. But mostly I'm questioning myself on how "multiplayer" an MMO should be.
What I perceive as the current standard - what's used in WoW, but I'm reasonably sure didn't originate there - is to make content from level 1 up to maximum soloable (but doable in a group). Then the "endgame" at level cap introduces more group-required content in the form of "dungeons" and "raids."
For the most part, I'd argue that works. It does have ups and downs, though.
Questing and leveling, in my opinion, goes more smoothly and quickly done alone anyway. And that seems the way a majority tackle it. When you're doing that in a group, you're either waiting on someone to catch up and read quest text or speeding through it yourself to not hold someone else up. Two people usually makes solo content fast and easy - which can be nice, but doesn't teach a player what a challenging fight is actually like. And then there's coordinating schedules if you actually want to level up with someone that can be difficult.
Example: Running a druid/warlock pair in WoW, I barely see more than 3/5 combo points and he only sees a tick or two of DoT damage before something dies. The company can be nice, but my shaman (who was started notably later) has out-leveled the pair easily.
Also, as a game goes on, this makes for a long "learning" period. If you start up in WoW now, you have questing to do across Azeroth, through Outland, over Northrend, and back before you're level 85 and can even start to play with max-level characters in a meaningful way. There have been some games that try to adjust and normalize characters up or down in numbers to group together, but the examples I've seen (briefly, I admit) have not been satisfying to me.
And now games are pushing story. That tends to mean weaving a story into that leveling stretch because that's where it fits best. And this seems a good thing, but that raises further issues on how to offer inclusion to groups. I've seen how TOR does this and it works for me about half the time. If they clean up those times when party members are "not invited" into cut scenes, there's still the question of how multiple characters of the same class behave in them (and I want to test that). Even so, I can't help but think the story is going to taper off at the endgame because it pretty much has to. Players can and will chew through content faster than companies can push it out.
And Guild Wars 2 has been pitching it's personal story, with the emphasis seeming to be on "personal." That may lead to an experience that's a bit more unique than TOR's, but I have yet to see how that game will address the desire to get friends in on it.
So at the moment, it looks like this may be the best approach, but is it? I know some games have required more group content earlier, but I haven't played many of those to compare. How soloable should an MMO be?
I do think the current setup where you "graduate" from solo play to group play to larger-group play seems biased toward the latter, almost as if saying someone who wants to play solo isn't as good a player. And there seems some acknowledgment of that. Blizzard is (and has been) making some effort to make more to do at endgame for solo players too - daily quest zones like the Molten Front and upgraded Darkmoon Faire or the MoP pet battle system. Still, if you want the best loot, you need to be raiding, and that can sting a little to someone who doesn't have a taste for that sort of play.
I wonder where things are going...
Guild Wars 2 is going to be dropping Zone Events on people (not unlike Rift, Champions or Warhammer) so while you may be able to go at your "solo game", you may run into something that -requires- a group to tackle or else you can't continue solo'ing along in that zone. While ideally everyone will come together in a sense of comraderie of MMO'ness and fight the thing, I have a theory that will not always hold true. I also wonder the instigation of such events. Warhammer and Champions were on timers, but also local to the area it happened in. Rifts drastically altered the landscape, but could be triggered by a player with an item that functionally opened a Rift up to kick off an event (which may lead to griefing in the future) in addition to some Rifts being spawned on timers. GW2's open quest things make the claim that if it isn't handled, then the event moves on to infect another quest zone, soon becoming everyone's problem. If this is on a timer, I would surmise people may become annoyed or sick of these events and instead of waiting for them with eagerness, just bail on the area entirely, hoping other folk "handle it" so they can "get back to their story".
ReplyDeleteMy experience with such open world events has been limited, so... I have a hard time weighing in on them as yet. In terms of GW2 specifically... What I have read has given me the impression that the "personal story" quests/missions will be limited to areas that are separate from where the zone events take place. Why? Because the choices the individual player makes are supposed to have some level of impact (and semi-random big dragon fights would overshadow that). That's also what makes me think it may not "play nice" with other PCs in the group - like maybe PC B can be there, but it'll be PC A's phased/instanced version of the place and only A can affect the story at all there. Also, I'm convinced the events have to be on some sort of timers. I haven't seen anything about triggers (other than prerequisite events that work in stages) and you don't code a mass dragon fight with artillery and adds only to run it once. How they balance the sweet spot between "so frequent it feels like participation is meaningless" and "so rare hardly anyone has a chance to participate" is what I want to see.
ReplyDeleteCorrection: They're not dropping anything on the players. You can see the big uber-dragon over on the horizon, and simply decide to skip it. You are not penalized for not getting involved, you just won't get the XP, Reputation, and Drops that you would have if you had gotten involved. From what I've seen, you can go through most of GW2 absolutely solo if you wish - you just do your personal instances, run to the next region, and repeat. The only exception I think would be the end-game content -- but then you're fighting a bloody uber-dragon at the end, the entire point of the story arc, so I'd not see that being soloable. However, you also don't need to team up with anyone. You can be there and take part, doing your own thing and fighting with your preferred method, without having to actually unite with anyone to do it. You can coordinate if you want, but you by no means have to. The personal story, if I'm not mistaken, happens 'in town', rather than 'in instance'. The aftershocks of pass/fail in these dynamic events remain in the public instance itself, and doesn't infect other instances. However, if you want Karma (rep), you need to get involved somewhat, or you're missing out on getting some Nice Things. After all, if you're a greedy dick not interested in saving townsfolk from centaurs, why should they bother helping you?
ReplyDeleteThe Sunless is the 'end result' of an entire chain of dynamic events, when you've pushed the undead back to the ocean. He shows up, and you've got a timer to push him back fully, otherwise the undead take the beachhead and begin their approach once more. It's being shown at conventions, because they want to show the awesomeness that can come from dynamic events. Most dynamics, from what I can tell, aren't necessarily on timer. They're more a natural progression... if unchecked it might work like clockwork, but I don't think most events will go unchecked.
ReplyDeleteBy walking into the area of a public quest thinger happening you get shunted into a Raid group. You don't have to talk to anyone, true, but you're in a group all the same. "Horizon" is different for people with different graphics cards and load time, btw. Why should townsfolk help you? I don't know, because this is a video game, not real life maybe? There are certain amenities that become real annoying if they're not available for walking into a town.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that's true. You're not part of an actual group, you're not teamed up with anyone at all. You can enter and leave the area as you wish. The event is only a small part of the overall instance, since there's probably at least three or four dynamic events going on in the instance at any given time. There are certain amenities that become real annoying if they're not available for walking into a town. And most of those you'll be able to get just by going into the city / castle / whatever rather than in a small village or town in the instance. And while it's a video game, that doesn't mean causality should be tossed out the window.
ReplyDeleteFrom the website: The Dynamic Event system in Guild Wars 2 is built to be scalable and encourage impromptu group play where players are naturally cooperating together and not worried about encroaching on each other. The more the merrier! However, all the videos I looked into seem to be supporting your belief. I would have thought, for ease of coding, smushing players into a group for purposes of participation and reward would have been the case. Then again, beta, so maybe it just doesn't have the HUD.
ReplyDelete