[MUD-Dev] Interesting EQ rant (very long quote)

[John Buehler]

Justin Hooper writes:

>> Exactly.  What is a viable construct for gameplay for the style of
>> entertainment you're trying to provide?  I have been postulating
>> 'nice' systems so that players who aren't as hardcore as those on
>> this list can find some entertainment.  I may be slanting the
>> systems towards exploration, but I'm assuredly getting my teeth
>> kicked in here by those who both dislike my approach and wouldn't >
>> want to play my game anyway.

> I think this is a fundamental problem.  For instance, I'm really not
> "into" the hardcore kill/cash-in/kill more type style of EQ.  What
> I'd love to see is a game with political intrigues, where gods had
> impacts over everyday lives, kings ruled and interacted with the
> populace, and a skilled player could make a lasting change on the
> course and history of events.  Now while any one of these might be
> doable as the model of a single player game, how does one go about
> doing all of these for a "large" number of people?  Then, how does
> one go about doing all of these and whatever OTHERS want for a
> "massive" number of people?

The part that concerns me is where you say that a skilled player could
make a lasting change on the course and history of events.  To me,
that's not casual.  There may be ways of doing it, but I don't have
them up my sleeve.  Your comment about pulling it off for a "large"
number of people is the very reason that I believe in "A Peasant's
Journey" as the game focus.  I can have 10,000 peasants.  Having
10,000 people all trying to shape the world's political system might
be a bit chaotic.

> Personally, I'd consider an exploration system with the features
> you've described as MORE hardcore, not less, in that it would seem
> very difficult to find something "nifty" without either:

>   a) being "first" to the game
>
> or
>
>   b) CONSTANT content updates
>
> or
>
>   c) having players who just innately "just get it"
>
> c would seem to be the aim, but then you would I think run into the
> "this area is what *I* like, why isn't it deeper" trap.  Of course,
> that may be completely unavoidable anyway.

I'm very definitely trying to avoid point A.  Point B is kinda
accurate, except that I want to have the massive content already built
before the game ever deploys.  Streaming it to the client as needed is
the goal.  If we can't do that through a 56K pipe, no problem.  I'll
wait another 10 years for common broadband access.  And hope that the
backbone pipes are multi-GB pipes.  Blech.

Point C suggests that players who play the game are the ones that will
enjoy it.  Certainly that's my hope.  That marketing will do a good
job of establishing what the game is like.  Hopefully, it'll be what
the game is *really* like, not the way the designers would *like* it
to be.  For example, EverQuest's hope that dungeons would be crawled
versus the reality of camping.

To me, hardcore gaming is when a player is so intent on a goal in the
game world that they play and they play hard and often.  They put lots
of effort into the game and they want to reach a goal or achieve some
effect.  I believe that this is a result of players feeling the need
to gain the cheese at the end of the maze, and that is the only
entertaining thing in the game.  A casual game provides a constant
degree of entertainment while in the maze, with minimal bonuses for
reaching the end of the maze.  So the casual player doesn't accomplish
much in the end, but he has fun doing it in the meantime.  I can play
for an hour or 100 hours.  It doesn't matter because I'm doing stuff
that I find entertaining - not working my way through stuff in order
to get some result.

Political intrigue is viable as a form of casual entertainment so long
as the results that hang in the balance are not excessively large or
dramatic.  Unfortunately, drama is what many players look for.  That's
another aspect of hardcore gaming to me.

> I agree, but as you plunge into depth and eliminate breadth, you
> effectively segregate your audience with finer and finer sieves.
> Accepting finite time/resources, I see little way to plunge depth
> and not eliminate breadth (within reason.. certainly I hope that the
> next crop of MMOGs do a better job of at least adding apparent
> depth.. I can scratch to the base of most of the current crop with a
> fingernail.. I'd prefer to at least have to take out a screwdriver)

Hmmm.  As with the world content, I hope to have systems being
produced in volume.  Each is responsible for providing its own depth.
So I want both depth and breadth (who doesn't?), and I hope to get
them over time.  The initial entertainment available might only be
some trades in towns and the ability to hunt.  No combat, no magic, no
PvP.  Let players get the feel of that game, find out how viable it
is, and who it attracts.  Incrementally add features and systems.
When PvP gets introduced, I'd like to introduce only the most
primitive forms of control over other player characters.  And so on.

I don't believe for a second that any of this is easy.  It's a hairy,
nasty mess.  But if I'm going to design a killer application, I
believe that it has to have most, if not all of these very difficult
to design (and implement) features.

> Again.. this goes back to getting out of a game what YOU (the
> player) want to.  If you truly want to attract the casual player,
> just do EVERYTHING to an extremely shallow depth.  Unfortunately,
> you'll find that casual is a relative definition.  The difficulty
> comes in that you want a game to "hook" a player.. certainly you
> want them to be able to jump into a game easily.. but once there,
> you want them to stay (assumably).  Now, if you cater the game only
> to the casual interest, what happens when they've exhausted the
> depth of your game in that casual interest, and are still interested
> in more?

To suggest that casual implies shallow is off the mark, I believe.  As
I suggested above, I believe casual implies entertainment in the
current actions of the player's character.  That, as opposed to a
dramatic climax at the end of the maze, which symptomatic of hardcore
activities.  Casual players solve puzzles because they delight in the
solving of the puzzles.  Hardcore players solve the puzzle because
it's in the way of them getting the Sword of Doom.  Casual players
build things because they enjoy building things.  Hardcore players
build things because the game says that they have to in order to get
the Sword of Doom.  And so on.  The actual activities that the player
engages in with his character are fundamentally entertaining as they
are being accomplished.

A simple example of how this is done in games today is combat.  Let's
assume that fighting things in EverQuest is entertaining.  It's not,
but they take a stab at it anyway.  If I'm a casual gamer who likes
combat, I'll get into combat with things that I'm confident I can
beat, or failing that, that I can run away from.  The combat sequences
are straight out of Hidden Dragon, Crouching Tiger (or whatever it's
called).  Characters jumping, slashing, blocking, dodging, etc.  It's
entertaining, and you're directing a chunk of the action.  You don't
get the Sword of Doom when you're done.  You don't get a level because
you've killed 100 thingies.  You get to enjoy all the twists and turns
of combat sequences.

I don't mean to completely neuter rewards, but I think they have to be
dramatically downplayed.

>> Lots of imagination, or lots of time, or lots of planning and
>> forethought.  Or a high threshhold for PvP.  And so on.  The
>> comment of being uninterested in 'pretty pictures' pops up here
>> from time to time.  The 'pretty pictures' environments are the ones
>> that I claim casual players will visit.

> But I can find pretty pictures (one degree of abstraction) browsing
> the web.  What's compelling after THAT?

The pretty pictures can be interacted with (you can go to the mountain
peak that you see in the distance).  Possibly, nobody else has seen
the pretty picture that you found.  Possibly, the effects that cause
the pretty picture rarely take place.

Pretty pictures can also take the form of witnessing anything that
happens in the game that is visually appealing.  Just seeing a crowded
marketplace with 100 player characters and 500 NPCs would be something
to see.  Rows of warriors and archers arrayed for battle, or marching
along a road would be similarly impressive.  And only visually.

I don't mean to play up pretty pictures overmuch.  They have a place
because they are a casual form of entertainment.

>> Weaving near the dangerous place gives you better access to that
>> lucrative warrior basket market.

> I do believe that was my point. ;) So, to restate it as a more well
> formed question: What about those of us who crave the middle ground?

Sorry, I'm being thick.  What's the middle ground?  Wanting to weave
baskets somewhere in between?

>> This is the 'casual' player problem.  A casual player doesn't care
>> about being beset or of being a hero.  Only the generally hardcore
>> gamers are interested in such things.  I'm of the opinion that, in
>> a massively multiplayer game, the best way to tackle things is to
>> present a fairly mundane, entertaining experience.  Simutronics is
>> talking about a future game called "Hero's Journey".  I'd build
>> "Peasant's Journey".

> Well, I'm not sure I buy that.  You're basically saying that
> mundanity is entertaining.  There are a plethora of movie ticket
> stubs, single-player game receipts, and the like out there that
> argue differently.  If you accept the basic tenet that entertainment
> is escapism (I do), how many people want to escape by being an
> "average" person.

> Do you have an example of a popular (Whatever that means) work of
> entertainment that successfully demonstrates the ability of people
> to really get into associating with the "peasant"?

The peasant metaphor is obviously just my word for characters run by
casual players.  I suppose the popular entertainment that I'm thinking
of is going for a walk.  Playing cards.  Watching a soap opera (the
NPCs in action).  Building something.  Selling something.  Going
hunting for food.  These are hobby-like activities that don't cause
significant impact in the world or to the character's fame, etc.

>> For *you*, that would be satisfying.  I'm a horse of a different
>> color, and I'm simply not interested in having somebody that I
>> don't know start beating on me.  I don't have the energy for that
>> this week.  Or this month.  I *do* have the energy to do that
>> whittling or basket weaving or just hanging out in the tavern and
>> listen to a roleplayer tell everyone about their exploits.  How
>> would you like it if you were

> No roleplayers.  By your previous definitions, they're non-casual
> players, and you're explicitly not catering to them.

Hmmm.  I'm not sure when I discarded roleplayers any more than I
discarded achievers, killers, explorers or any other category of
player we can think of.  I can have any kind of player, but they will
approach the game casually.  I don't want hardcore roleplayers.  They
want to run towns, be kings.  They want to be a hero.  That's too
dramatic, and players will obsess about the outcome.  A casual
roleplayer plays a peasant-level role in the world.

I could address a similar treatment for achievers, explorers, and so
on.  None of those people get to have the ultimate experience to make
their life complete.  But they can find entertainment that tickles
their desires for reward, exploration, etc.

> So, explain to me why you'd go online (possibly paying good money)
> to whittle, instead of pulling out a block of wood, a knife, and
> doing it there in real life, where you'd eventually have a real
> product to show for it?

Because I can also blacksmith, become a cooper, a fisherman, etc, all
in an environment that is unusual.  Further, many of the skills in the
fantasy world are not very accessible to the players.  Your whittling
example is reasonable.  A block of wood and a knife and you go to
town.  Blacksmithing?  Fighting?  Magic?  Exploration?  The
exploration thing is particularly difficult to do in real life.  It's
expensive if you want to go places that nobody else has gone.  If
there are any left.

The point is that the things that you can get your character to do,
you could do in real life.  But you don't because it's such a hassle
to do.  Equipment, training, time delays, niggling little pains and
annoyances such as pulled muscles, grime, noxious fumes, etc.  Many of
the annoyances of reality would be sanitized out of the equation,
attempting to leave only the entertaining elements.

>> sitting in a movie theatre, watching the movie and somebody started
>> playing with the focus, or dropped out the sound or pulled a fire
>> alarm?  You would get to chase them down and take them to the
>> police, right?  Most people aren't interested in going through the
>> hassle.  They just wanted to watch the movie?  Why?  Because that's
>> what they went out and *did*.  If they wanted to hunt down spoiler
>> moviegoers, they'd be doing that instead.

> Okay.. fair enough.. but then why go to your virtual world instead
> of the movie theater or bookstore, where such un-spoilable avenues
> of entertainment already exist.

Lack of interactivity.  Why do people pursue hobbies when they can
read books about the ultimate jobs that have already been done by
experts?

>> I wonder if a pure reality medieval world, or a pure reality
>> colonial america world wouldn't be more amenable to large scale use
>> than the fantasy genre.

> Pure medieval?  So I'm a serf.. I get up.. I hoe for hours (or more
> likely, dig with my hands) to get the bugs off the crops.. I eat a
> piece of bread and some cheese.. I chop wood.. I collapse exhausted.

:) Blacksmithing, coopering, silversmithing, weaponsmithing,
seamstressing, tailoring.  There are bazillions of different roles
that a "peasant" can occupy in the game world.

>> How do they collect all the maps?

> They spend 10X more time exploring your game than anyone else.
> Because, well, they want to be the best.  And if that's what it
> takes..

> Unless you're generating an infinite number of maps.. which leads
> back to content creation (one way or another)

Not infinite, but it's a big world.  The demo that I built projected
the terrain out over a planet the size of the moon.  I want realtime
travel and scads of things to do (breadth and depth, as before).  The
goal of the game is to eliminate the largest incentives to finding all
the maps.  If finding all the maps in the world is something that
players find interesting to do, then by all means, go for it.  Where
are they?  I have no idea.  Hundreds of villages, dozens of ruins,
hundreds of caves and lairs, dozens of towns, big cities with
thousands of rooms.  And then there are other kingdoms, unexplored
lands all over the place, lands controlled by the bad guys, etc.

The fact that the world is so large and there is so much content to
explore is what has me wondering how they'll find all the maps.

> If, however, it's not, I can see that doing a few quests might be
> entertaining in and of themselves a few times, but if there's a
> large proportion of times where, at the end of the quest, there's
> nothing there, there's likely to be a type of negative reinforcement
> response.

I'm okay with negative reinforcement of the end of the maze because I
want the lion's share of the reason that they undertook the quest was
to have the fun of reaching the end of the maze.  Going on doomed
treasure hunts are still supposed to be fun.  Not to a goal-oriented
achiever player, but that is a hardcore attitude.  According to my
definition, anyway.

> Certainly it IS possible to build quests themselves which are
> entertaining to large degrees (viz. adventure games, and especially
> old infocom adventure games), but then this doesn't mesh with your
> idea of a casual gamer too well in my mind.  To make the quest
> rewarding regardless of whether or not the big treasure is at the
> end, you effectively have to build a reward structure into each step
> of the quest instead.  Maybe it's not a big loot, but rest assured,
> there IS reward there.  And again, this leads back into the arena of
> content creation.

Let's say that a quest involves travelling via ship to Egypt, and
finding a certain shopkeeper who has a given item for sale.  That item
is actually a funky-looking key that opens the family vault of some
NPC baron who died and explained all this stuff in his will.  The
executor recruits some players to go fetch the key.  The cheeze is
participating in a little vignette of game world activity and maybe
picking up some gold and improved faction with the baron's family.
The entertainment along the way is the ship journey to Egypt (any
number of things could happen to the ship or those on it), seeing
Egypt, having to figure out how to speak to Egyptians that don't speak
Hobbit (whatever), finding the shopkeeper, figuring out which item is
the one you're after, securing meals and lodging while in Egypt,
visiting the Egyptian marketplace to nab some trinkets for the trip
back.  On top of all that, there's the potential for something popping
up that draws one or more of the group away to pursue other adventures
in and about Egypt.

A hardcore gamer will get his character on the ship, sit it in a
corner, read a book, hop off the ship, run through the town shouting
for a certain NPC until a player yells the answer back, then hop back
onto the ship, park his character in a corner and finish the book.
That, or create a character in Egypt first.  The question is whether
all that is worth the cheese of whatever the players were going to
receive for the task.

"Casual gaming.  It's not a job, it's an adventure."

> Finally, I understand your point.  There's a reason the single most
> played game on my machine is Freecell.  And it's not entirely a
> solitaire compulsion. :)

Oddly, my casual game is single-player Quake III.  I hop on, shoot up
NPCs and hop off.  The entertainment is casual because I can hop in
and hop out.  The entertainment is mostly pretty pictures and
permutations of ways that kills can be achieved.  The pretty pictures
are the graphical effects of the different explosions, bullets
ricocheting, etc.

This is very much like another form of casual entertainment that I
played for several years: a flight simulator.  Hop in, fly around, do
some aerobatics, shoot up some ground targets and hop out.

JB


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev