[MUD-Dev] CoH (was: MMORPG Cancellations: The sky is falling?)

[Sean Howard]

"Scott Macmillan" <scottm at stainlesssteelstudios.com> wrote:

> From my time playing it, the appeal I find in this system is that
> it is simple (I don't have to hit the fansites to figure out what
> my current equipment does, and what I need to get next), and that
> I -don't- have to worry about it being a commodity.

At the risk of putting words into your mouth, it's not that you like
the system, it's just that you don't hate the system. It is
streamlined so efficiently that it doesn't get in the way of the
reason you are there - and that is to kick some ass as a super
powered being.

CoH takes the metaphor of super beings and runs with it. You've got
huge hulking men. When they land from a jump, the ground
shakes. They run around on roof tops. They smack foes and it reeks
of strength. You can fly through the city, jump high above
buildings, or speed through town. For a brief moment, you feel like
you are really a superhero, fighting crime on the streets. CoH is
amazing in this regards. It's almost fan service.

But even as great as it is, you still take damage from falling 15
feet - which feels strange and out of place. Same with a hulking
monster fighting petty criminals in a nice office building. Luckily,
these aspects are somewhat rare, so the illusion isn't broken to
much. Cryptic did a brilliant job on the superhero aspect.

By comparison, SWG has a lot of interesting decisions to make, but
the Star Wars metaphor breaks down on almost every level. Most
people don't like SWG because it doesn't feel like Star Wars. Most
people like CoH because it feels like superheroes.

> It has the same effect as an equipment system would in DAoC or EQ,
> except that it's been streamlined down to the essentials.

I'm not sure that is a positive point. For instance, Dungeon Siege
took so much of the non-essentials out of the game that it
practically played itself. Games are about making decisions. Not all
decisions need to be made, but if you take away or limit good
decisions, the game aspect suffers. Being a great game designer is
knowing which decisions to offer and which decisions to make for the
player.

City of Heroes gives you very little decision making. You've got a
simple branching tree of contacts, which doesn't give you much
information to make an informed decision about which to choose. You
get a new skill every other level, but you will only get to choose
from about three of them at any one time - most of which are pretty
similar except in small ways. The enhancements make very little
noticable difference, except when you get to the origin enhancements
much, much later in the game. The areas are specific to levels, so
that you are herded through them, unable to find anything
interesting in old areas, and forced to level again from basically
scratch in the new areas. Outside of the shops, which are rather
useless by most regards, the level up guy, which is unnecessary, and
I hear the new tailor, there isn't anything in the game which isn't
about combat.

> This keeps with CoH's extremely focused design (getting out there
> and kicking villains around with a minimum of fuss).

That's the metaphor of being a superhero. That's not the
gameplay. CoH has a brilliant metaphor. I'm not arguing that.

> I disagree.  The fact that the gameplay has near-immediate
> gratification, and that you can play the game in 15 minute chunks
> is an extremely important gameplay related USP.

There is no reason why you couldn't do that with a much deeper game.
Instant gratification is the reward for successful gameplay. How
much time you spend has little to do with the quality of how it is
spent.

For example, spending 15 minutes walking across field to a dungeon,
going through the dungeon, and walking back to the informant is not
15 minutes of interesting decision making.

> These things are realized by a polished combat system, a
> streamlined enhancement system, and a level design that lets you
> get right into whuppin' some bad guys.

I have to again make the distinction between metaphor and
gameplay. I also feel that I should make the distinction between
streamlined and shallow.

> IMO, Cryptic managed to keep focused to deliver a relatively
> "shallow" but extremely rewarding game.

That is exactly true. But I could make an extremely rewarding game
which gave you a dollar for every 5 minutes you played. It wouldn't
make it a good "game".

> It allows non-hardcore players to enjoy it without the frustration
> of having to take part in 9-hour raids.

I believe that CoH does have 9-hour raids for the higher level
characters.  Task Force missions or something. Besides, MMORPGs
aren't just about large raids anymore. Everquest 2 is being designed
around small parties of 6 people total.

> The alternative would have been to try to jam that depth in at the
> start, and probably do a mediocre job of it.

Shades of SWG, perhaps? It'll be interesting to see whether SWG
fixes all the flaws before CoH adds in all the depth... which
approach is better?  Enquiring minds want to know!

> Given the realities of finite resources and time, I'm glad they
> polished a lower number of features, instead of half-assing a
> bunch.

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that if you are going to praise
CoH, which deserves all sorts of praise, you should be praising it
for the things which is does right - which are plenty. However, the
shallow game systems and almost complete lack of player interaction
aren't deserving of praise. I know they might not have had the time
or money to make the game deeper. I don't hold that against
them. I'm against people trying to justify their enjoyment of the
game by praising flawed and uninteresting systems.

I want the right stuff to be praised because I want the right
lessons to be taken from it. I don't want another GTA3 syndrome.

> Can CoH do well with a game that may not appeal to the hardcore?

First of all, I don't like the whole "hardcore" title. It implies an
intellectual difference between gamers. It's also unfair because
"harcore" is more about the effects and not the variety of
motivations, and I don't think it is helpful to think of players
like that. I have the same problem with the
Hearts/Clubs/Diamonds/Spades thing. But that's a different subject
for a different time.

Anyway, to answer your question, those beacons of hardcore thought -
namely gamer webcomics like PvP, Penny Arcade, Ctrl-Alt-Del, and
InkTank - all seem to love CoH. Judging by the horde of posts in
their forums about the game, all positive, their fans are enjoying
it too. Also, the message boards on GameFAQs are quite active and
almost unanamously positive. I'd say that CoH is exactly the sort of
game that appeals to the hardcore - more so than Everquest and the
others which are actually surprisingly non-hardcore.

> (Sean - just got your latest email, but I don't have time to
> refactor this one to take it into account!)

Refactor? Programmer, eh? It's been a while since I stopped being
one, so it's a bit weird to hear programmer speak again. :)

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