[MUD-Dev] Homogeneity and choice (Was DESIGN: Why do people like weather in MMORPGs?)

[Wayne Witzke]

On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 21:54:51 -0500, John Buehler <johnbue at msn.com> wrote:
> Mike Rozak writes:

>> In WoW I have a 16th level character and I'm unhappy that I can't
>> wander anywhere I want in the world. I understand that the
>> designers put the monsters in it for both fun (although I don't
>> find them too fun) and as a challenge to slow me from reaching my
>> goal to world exploration too quickly.

> If you're unhappy at the experience you get from an entertainment
> venue, then it's flawed.  It's that simple.

> That doesn't mean that it's irrevocably busted and useless.  It
> only means that it's flawed.  It can be improved upon.  When the
> improvement comes, it will be called either the next incremental
> step in gaming or the next generation in gaming.  Either way, it
> would seem to be worth keeping an eye on the flaws so that
> something better can be created.

> I'm simply not a believer in the theory that sometimes
> entertainment has to have lows so that the highs can have impact.
> We HAVE the lows in our real lives.  That's why we look for
> entertainment.  To seek a complete set of lows and highs from a
> game suggests that something is out of whack.

Does this really make sense, though?  I mean, people don't just
consume entertainment to be "happy" all the time.  Some of my
favorite movies, for instance, certainly didn't make me feel happy
by the time the credits rolled.  Forgive me all of you who haven't
seen it as this might give a tiny bit away, but American Beauty was
far from being a generally "happy" movie, and ended on an extremely
sad note.  In fact, I would say that it was very disturbing in many
respects.  Yet, I consider it one of the greatest movies of all
time, and many people agree that it was an excellent, well done, and
well worth watching.

Maybe it's possible to create a "virtual world" where everybody
acted like they were on Prozac all the time.  Players never die.
Combat is rewarding without having any risk.  The graphics are
universally pleasing and beautiful to the eye, never dull, drab,
dreary, disturbing, or "realistic".  When enemies are decapitated
(which they always are, since it's certainly the most pleasing way
of killing an enemy), a happy rainbow shoots out of their neck
instead of yucky blood (my apologizes to Aqua Teen Hunger Force for
this one). However, I am quite certain that upon encountering a
virtual world such as this, I would quickly move on, and I'm betting
that most people would do the same.  Where is the spice that keeps
players interested if the game is one long, drawn out attempt just
to make the players happy?

I really don't think that it's possible to create a virtual world
where there are no "lows", but only "highs".  One fundamental
problem is that for every set of features that you include in a
virtual world, there will be people that consider some of those
features to be "low" inducing, even if the vast majority of people
consider them to be "highs".

Another fundamental problem is that, if you're giving the player
choices, then you are setting the character up for failure, and
failure is a definite low.  It doesn't even matter what those
choices are, or that every choice has a positive outcome.  If you're
weaving a basket (this would be in the real world) and you have
several colors to choose from, even if you plan things in detail and
know what you're doing and are guaranteed 100% that you will get
exactly the basket that you planned, there is still no guarantee
that you will be happy with the basket you ended up with.  The
basket may have looked good on paper, but somehow the finished
product failed to live up to your expectation.  That's a low.  He
can take the basket apart and try again, but that's a repeated
attempt, and that can definitely be a low. The only way to remove
this low is to make sure that the person making the basket has no
choice in the matter and is forced to create a basket from the start
that has been scientifically chosen to give the creator the biggest
happiness factor, and then what's the point? Why not just go and buy
a basket from "Baskets are Us?"

Now, apply this same idea to character development and you run into
the same problem.  You cannot guarantee that a player will be happy
with their character once the choices they've made accumulate into
an end result, even if you have something extraordinarily flexible
where the user can change courses half-way through the development
process. The best you can do is let the player change directions,
but that is almost certainly going to result in wasted effort, which
is another definite low.

Furthermore, I really don't think that lows *should* be
eliminated. Without lows, a lot of the best, most memorable moments
of a virtual world will go away!  I remember a time when I was
playing a MUD and I was showing a new player around.  We stopped at
a river, and I drank from the river to show him how to do it.  Well,
instead of him drinking from the river, he jumped in!  My experience
with swimming on this MUD was limited to the knowledge that it could
be done, but that didn't stop me from jumping in and trying to save
him and his stuff. About 30 minutes, and 7 or 8 deaths later, my
character was a shuttering wreck of his former self and I ended up
having to beg to a far more experienced player who happened along to
"Please, please, please retrieve our gear!"  Was this fun?  No, it
was nerve wrecking and guilt inducing, but the final experience, the
bonds that I formed with the two other characters involved, and the
knowledge that I gained about the system in general certainly
justified as one of the most fondly remembered moments that I had
from that MUD.  It's one of those things that seems a lot funnier
after the fact then it did at the time.

Rather then just dismiss low points as things that are to be avoided
at all costs, I think that instead it is better to analyse the lows
and see if they enhance the overall experience of the player base
(as some of the people who participate in this list have already
said). That snow-blocked mountain pass that everyone keeps
mentioning is an excellent example.  Now, if you just block that
mountain pass without considering the consequences, I would argue
that's probably a big mistake.  Having snow-blocked passes *just*
for the purpose of having snow-blocked passes, or even just for the
purpose of making it more realistic, doesn't seem like good enough
justification.  However, if there is a war going on between two
nations, and that pass is the only access that the two nations have
to each other for several "leagues" along that mountain range, and
players are participating in this battle, then suddenly the weather
has made a major impact on the war. Now both sides have some time to
prepare a detailed offense/defense on their respective sides.
Different skills and abilities come into play when preparing for
battle, and the battle that occurs when that snow finally melts
should be dazzling, something that will be remembered for several
virtual years after the fact.

If a virtual world supports war like this, that seems like good
enough justification for supporting the "snow block pass" feature as
well. Will some players be inconvenienced by such a feature?  Of
course. But in this scenario some players would be inconvenienced by
NOT having weather effects implemented, because they would not be
able to use their planning skills to set up a truly stunning offense
or defense to come into effect at the end of the snowy season, and,
given that the "snow blocked pass" allows for more variation and
interesting game play then the alternative, I believe that such a
virtual world would benefit more from its inclusion then from its
exclusion.

I think the bottom line is for weather effects, lighting, or just
about any other feature, if you have one or more good reasons to
justify the inclusion, reasons that truly add something to the
gameplay that makes it more interesting for the player base, then
include the feature.  If you're just including it just to include
it, or to make the virtual world "more realistic," then you'll
probably only succeed in generating a design flaw.

Wayne

--
Wayne Witzke
wayne.witzke at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev