What makes an MMO?
By
Adeon Hawkwood,
Posted on: 2009-11-15 09:48 in CoH and CoV General Discussions
Quote:
I'm not sure there are enough ways to do that which aren't tied specifically to numbers, and I'm generally opposed to objectives explicitly requiring a specific number of players on the team for no other reason than to place a numerical requirement on the minimum number of players required. I don't see why, at least in theory, a controller can't throw two switches at opposite ends of a room (if the game mechanics allowed for such things). If there were, I would want to explore those options as well.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Okay good point.
Although one way of dealing with the fact that team capabilities have a wide range, you could uncouple the alternative path to victory from the capabilities of the team completely (or nearly completely). For instance, you can win by clicking 8 different glowies in seperate rooms within 1 second of each other. Or, you can beat down the bad guy, who was designed to be a challenge to 6 average players. That way, a team that can't beat down the bad guy (due to bad powerset matchup or whatever) can try to recruit warm bodies and click the glowies instead. Just a thought. |
Quote:
| The issue with having 'partial victory' in a scenario is mostly one of presentation I think. "You were sent to the hospital, but you have gained x component that could be used to build a device that can hurt the boss' might be viewed by some as 'losing, but with a consolation prize'. |
Quote:
|
What if a Contact said something like: - If you defeat all of the mook foes in this warehouse, I will give you x merits. - If you defeat the named boss, I will give you this enhancement. - If you destroy the Mac Guffin, I will award you with x influence. ...and so on, with each goal being clearly independent? |
[Guide to Defense] [Scrapper Secondaries Comparison] [Archetype Popularity Analysis]
In one little corner of the universe, there's nothing more irritating than a misfile...
(Please support the best webcomic about a cosmic universal realignment by impaired angelic interference resulting in identity crisis angst. Or I release the pigmy water thieves.)
You know what would make MMOs more fun for me? More physical interactions with the world. I love games with physics effects in them. Heck, just having rag-doll physics in CoH makes a huge difference to me when compared to MMORPGs I've played that have the same boring death animation for almost every mob. The destruction in mayhem missions is most pleasing too.
Online FPS games are usually better at this than MMOs. Having a few different weapon types, but with complete freedom over how you use them, can give you more tactical options than having dozens of spells/abilities/powers in an MMORPG. Part of this is due to MMORPG easy targeting - it's too binary - I can target my enemy, or not. In an FPS I can go for a headshot, I can shoot at the torso, I can shoot at a foot or arm sticking out from behind an object, I can even fire an explosive weapon at the wall or the ground next to my enemy, or loop a grenade over his head, or bounce a grenade off a wall to land next to him. It's not just the additional skill required, it's the additional options available - and there is that pleasing learning curve where you find new ways of using certain weapons, often depending on the type of terrain present and how the enemy (or you) are using it.
Some of my funniest moments in Planetside came from in-game objects interacting in unforeseen ways - random unlikely events that you and your friends might see once but never again - moments of emergent gameplay that developers never imagined happening - moments that you would remember and re-tell as nostalgic anecdotes to your friends ("hey, were you there when...").
This includes things like:
- an explosion flipping a moving buggy over into a group of infantry
- launching a tank over a hill and landing on another tank just as it fires its main gun
- scraping the bottom of a Dropship across the top of a base and squishing some poor grunt stood on the roof
- setting off explosives to blow up the enemy as they come through a door, seeing one of their corpses blown up on top of some crates into an awkward pose
- dropping bombs from a Liberator Bomber and managing to hit an enemy Dropship flying beneath you
- air-dropping a tank onto the roof of a base from a Lodestar transport, just to freak out the defenders
- hacking an enemy tank while the driver was repairing it, then jumping into it and running the poor sap over
And so many other situations I could relate.
Those moments were more cinematic than any number of cutscenes. They made me feel like I was actually in a sci-fi war film. No MMO has ever provided me with that level of immersion.
The problem I have with a lot of MMORPGs is that the combat feels so static, repetitive and predictable. CoH is better than most in that respect, because the combat seems more action-based (in CoH I feel more like I'm playing a character than managing a character - I haven't been able to say the same for many MMORPGs).
But DCUO is promising that a cold-based hero will be able to freeze an enemy inside a block of ice, then another super-strength hero will be able to pick up that block of ice and throw it at another enemy, or pick up a car and throw it at the block of ice, shattering it and doing extra damage to the enemy inside. I like powers with multiple uses like that and situations where players can find synergies between their characters in dynamic ways.
You see I think MMOs should be all about adventure, just like pen & paper roleplaying was. And just as the latter had very few limitations, MMOs should be trying to build worlds where interactions haven't been planned out and restricted into narrow lanes of predictable gameplay. MMORPGs should be providing us with emergent gameplay and memorable moments like PnP RPGs did, those gems of unpredictability. Sure, we can't have total freedom like in PnP RPGs, but I'm sure we could have a lot more than we get now. That doesn't mean directionless gameplay, but it does mean that MMOs need to be more dynamic and less predictable.
Here's one example: I remember when RPGs had random encounters, but most MMORPGs put too much control in the players' hands about what they will face and when - there are no surprises anymore and it's draining the adventure out of MMOs. Enemies line up to be slaughtered, rather than hunting you down. It is all just so predictable.
Quote:
Yeah I hated that about Champions Online too. I've read Silver and Golden Age comics and honestly most of them seemed rather lame, camp and/or childish - I much prefer the Bronze Age comics I read as a kid or the Modern Age graphic novels I read now.|
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
I'm REALLY the wrong guy to talk to about this. I never actually liked comic books, so a game which screams "super hero" would be a serious turnoff for me. I HATE that "cheesy silver age dialogue" and all the concepts that come with it. If I have to be quite honest, that's a big reason I highly doubt I'll ever take another look at Champions Online. All the camp and the cheesy just grate on my nerves. If that's what it means to be closet to comic books, then let them have it. I'm happy with THIS game exactly because it does not follow the comic book genre too closely.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by GlaziusF
I think one of the problems with genuine multidimensional gameplay is that you run into the Shadowrun problem - your face is charming the guard, your mage is scouting for astral security, your rigger's piloting a drone to scout for physical security, your decker is diving into the building's cyberspace, and your street samurai is cooling his heels in the team van waiting for the GM to finish adjudicating all four of those people's special snowflake sidesessions. And none of them can help the others.
|
I don't think there's anything wrong with having non-combat roles, but I think every class in an MMO should have combat as its main role, with the non-combat skills either being available to all, or spread amongst the classes/archetypes of the game, so that they can occasionally provide other ways of achieving things. In CoH imagine if we had proper day jobs, where being a computer technician in your day job meant you could occasionally hack security cameras to avoid spawning too many ambushes - or an architect who could see the entire layout of any indoor office map upon zoning in and also be able to find secret doors - or a journalist whose trained curiosity would allow them to find additional clickies with clues that other party members couldn't see/find, which might set up side objectives or lead to bonus missions. And each character could only have a single day job at a time.
Quote:
I picked up CoX because it looked interesting and because I like superhero stuff. I liked the game enough to stick with it for 5 years(with year or so break in there). That doesn't mean I want it to stagnate or not do more to become more than it was at launch or even more than it was two issues ago. |
Originally Posted by Samuel_Tow
To each his own. I picked up City of Heroes because it looked like a good game and DESPITE it being a super hero game, not BECAUSE of it. I'm not terribly concerned, myself, with what's actually expected of super heroes, or for that matter what's expected of MMOs. I'm mostly concerned about having a good, decent game. And I do. It's a fighting game, from where I'm standing, but then that's really good enough for me. Marvel Super Heroes was a fighting game... Very much a fighting game, yet that was one of the better games ever made with the Marvel characters.
|
I can't really see it doing that without adding more things to do in the game
Quote:
| This goes back to the old argument about "depth," which in turn probably goes back to "what makes an MMO." Personally, I don't see depth as a necessary prerequisite of any MMO, or indeed any RPG. As a matter of fact, what passes for depth all too often interferes with the actual gameplay of the game, and I've never been above just playing the heck out of a simple, shallow, fun game. That's why I fell in love with Torchlight as much as I did. |
Look, I enjoy taking Serious Sam: Second Encounter and blasting my way through weird alien hordes as much as the next guy. But that's not the ONLY thing I enjoy in games. And while it may not for you, that level of gameplay can get old after an extended period. It also won't appeal to as wide a range of people. And we ARE talking about a genre of game that's trying to make as many people play it as possible, for an extended period.
Quote:
| Is that what makes an MMO? Depth, things to do outside of combat, an accurate representation of the source material and so forth? |
Those things should go hand in hand with a great combat system, making the core gameplay(combat) stand out even more and be more satisfying.
I'm not advocating forcing players to stop engaging in combat or to do less of it. But having missions be more than just beat-em-ups is something that is long overdue in this game
Quote:
| I recently spent a lot of time talking about "just a good game," and really, MMO or otherwise, this is what I look for. I don't expect any one game to have everything, and if an MMO opts to be combat only or even just combat mostly, that's fine. Combat is good enough and, to be completely honest, the more they muddy the waters with out of combat activities, the less I actually like the overall game. |
Quote:
| I'm REALLY the wrong guy to talk to about this. I never actually liked comic books, so a game which screams "super hero" would be a serious turnoff for me. I HATE that "cheesy silver age dialogue" and all the concepts that come with it. If I have to be quite honest, that's a big reason I highly doubt I'll ever take another look at Champions Online. All the camp and the cheesy just grate on my nerves. If that's what it means to be closet to comic books, then let them have it. I'm happy with THIS game exactly because it does not follow the comic book genre too closely. |
Quote:
Put it this way - all I've said about MMO innovation goes very much counter to pretty much everything I've said over the past five years. I'm trying to make sense and explain how that is possible without making me a hypocrite.|
Originally Posted by Slashman
Maybe I'm missing something, but you say on one hand that you're tired of MMOs doing the same things, but when we get suggestions on things that they could add to make them different, you say that 'depth' will ruin the game. You either want the genre to innovate and grow, or you want to keep playing Torchlight.
|
To be honest, I wouldn't mind playing City of Heroes until the end of time. Even if the game added nothing from this point forward, I'd still feel the same way. I like THIS GAME and I don't really need it to change in order to keep my interest. I wouldn't refuse change and addition, but my subscription doesn't hinge on Paragon Studios keeping up with me. It pretty much hinges on them not taking away what I already have, which is terribly unlikely.
But on the other hand, I wouldn't even consider buying City of Heroes 2 unless it had MASSIVE innovations and something to truly tear me away from this game. Why would I pay for a new game that isn't at all different from the one I'm playing now? An object at rest wants to stay at rest. I won't just roll downhill to the newest possible MMO. I'm going to stay exactly where I am unless another MMO can actually muster enough pull to shift me over to it, and I'll probably set roots there, in turn.
However, in a very big way, I feel that MMOs trying to appeal to EVERYBODY is what makes them so dull at the end of the day, and what makes them all follow the same mould. It's as if MMO designers feel that no-one should ever be able to say "Nah, this game just isn't for me." And players treat them the same way, like it's a CRIME that there's nothing in the game you like. Over the years, I've had to tell many people that, you know, it's OK that you don't like the game. It is what it is, and if it doesn't have anything you actually like, then quitting it IS the right thing to do. You don't need to hate it for it, and you're not going to be branded a traitor. Everyone picks and plays the games they like, and no MMO could ever hope to please EVERYBODY.
In fact, the more multi-faceted an MMO is, the less good it actually becomes. There's innovation and depth, and then there's lack of focus. To a large extent, I actually feel awkward when I walk into a game wanting only a small portion of it, with the bulk of the game designed "for somebody else." It's true for City of Heroes, as well. Once upon a time, it felt like the entire game was designed for me. For me, personally. That's what it felt like. Now... Now it feels like half the game was designed for someone else, and I'm paying half a subscription fee to support someone else's idea of fun. Call me egoistical, but that thought doesn't thrill me. I'm not up in arms about it, but it IS unpleasant.
Basically, it comes down to my disbelief in the need for a "more complete game experience." I no longer believe in the theory of the one game to rule them all, one game to find them, one game to bring them all together and in the genre bind them. I just don't believe it'll happen. That doesn't mean I'd be against people trying and, hell, innovative ways to bring the different aspects together in a seamless way would actually be GOOD. But by the same token, I'd rather prefer innovation that actually works to improve the focus of the game, rather than spreading tendrils out into other game types.
I realise I'm not the only person playing this game, and I'm fairly certain my playstyle and preferences are aberrant. But then, I can't really speak for other people, or indeed speak from a standpoint of what's good for other people, or for the game as a whole. I know what I like, and I express that. It's up to the powers that be to balance that against all the other people speaking their own preferences. If it were up to me, the game would be very different, but probably nowhere near as successful, so I've no illusions I know better than the people in charge, or that my preferences are the only right ones.
On the one hand, sticking to the status quo and re-releasing old games over and over again is a doomed venture. Sooner or later the bubble will burst. But on the other hand, change for the sake of change and features for the sake of having more features is not a better solution. Games that lack focus, at least in my opinion, lack any real draw. I'm emotional with my games. I start them to have fun, and if I leave with a big grin on my face and good memories in my head, that was a successful night of gaming. But a game that's sort of there and you can kind of just go around doing stuff in it... That doesn't work for me. I need to have a purpose and a point, or it's all just aimless wandering around.
Basically put, I'd rather play a game that does one or two things very well, than play a game that does a thousand things kind of OK. If a game with a strong focus isn't for me, then oh, well. But if it is, it's AMAZING. A game that has a zillion diluted focuses is probably going to have something for me, but that's unlikely to move me enough to so much as even smirk.
When it comes to innovation, "just innovation" is as bad as "no innovation." Making games BETTER is the idea, not just making them DIFFERENT. Different is not necessarily better. Nor, for that matter, is bigger, more expansive or more diverse. This brings us back to quality. A high-quality game is good even if it's restrictive. A low-quality game isn't good pretty much ever. This is where MMOs suffer the most - developers lose themselves in creating an expansive world with zillions of different activities, and yet none of those activities ultimately ends up being of high quality. They're all sort of meh, there mostly so they can be in the feature list.
I guess my point is as much about innovation as much as it is about quality, though I didn't realise that until it was pointed out to me. I chastise game developers for shoving in the exact same elements in every MMO and justify that with innovation, but the truth is those elements suck big time, which is a large part of my problem with them. I suppose if you could have a game that has all the old elements, but they were actually GOOD, that would count as innovation, as well. And that's pretty much what Blizzard's entire business model is centred around - all the things people expect, only this time they're actually good. Half the reason I dislike the "list" of MMO clichés is because I expect them to suck, especially if they're listed in name only, so I say I want something else, hoping that that won't suck as much. But I'll gladly take something OLD if it were done right for a change.
Easy example - I HATE player-drive economies, because they're nothing more than a lot of busywork. I actually kind of like the economy here. Our Market interface is easy to use (even if it's fat) and actually buying and selling doesn't take almost any work at all. No searching for bargains, no researching the price lists, limited-time offers. Basically, you sell for as much as you're willing to sell for and you buy for as much as you're willing to pay. Sure, yeah, if you want to "marketeer," you can do that, too, but the system doesn't require it. To me, that's a market done right, and in my eyes, that IS an innovation. No need to reinvent the wheel if you can just make a better wheel.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
I think a lot of Dev teams underestimate how important just the feel of a game is. If I try out an MMO on a free trial and my character feels too clunky (and it's not a giant robot), too floaty (and it's not a winged pixie), or slides around the game world with no sense of friction (and it's not an ice skater) then I just give up on it and uninstall the trial. I have to feel comfortable in my character's shoes.
One of the things I love in CoH is that characters feel like they have just enough weight - they feel connected and part of their world - and moving them around just feels natural and instinctive, even when they're doing very unnatural things like leaping over a building. I love how Huge characters feel heavier than Male/Female characters thanks to their animations and sound effects - it makes a huge difference and so many MMOs just don't bother making big characters feel any different to small characters except for where your eye-line is in first-person view.
One of the things I really hated in CO is that my character felt too light and seemed to be sliding everywhere - he almost didn't feel connected to the ground or the world. There have also been other games (such as Vanguard and PotBS in avatar-mode) where I didn't feel like I was moving my character, I felt like I was managing their movement - that really kills immersion for me.
The graphics contrast was another element of that too - CoH's character graphics match the world graphics pretty well (though I worry about how some older costume pieces will look in contrast with ultra-mode graphics outdoor in Praetoria) - characters look like they should be in the world - they fit - but I've played so many MMOs where either the world graphics were much higher quality than the avatar graphics (CO, EQ2, DAoC, Vanguard, WoW to some extent) or vice-versa (errr, well PotBS in avatar-mode in some towns, and EQ in the original zones after the Luclin avatar graphics update) that it looked like the characters were visitors to the world from another game. I find that really jarring too, and immersion-breaking, to the point where I'd rather have average graphics everywhere than have average terrain with the avatars being much higher quality.
It must be tough for Dev teams, though - it's hard to quantify what some players will like and others won't, especially in nebulous areas like "feel" and gameplay. I just don't have much faith that gameplay and feel is near the top of the list for many Dev teams - and I think that is where teams like Blizzard, Valve and Bioware win out. I've read interviews with Devs on those teams and with Blizzard in particular before WoW's launch they spoke about building a single zone/area and just getting everyone at the studio taking whole afternoons to play that alpha version so that they could tweak the gameplay and iterate until it was fun. Then getting their friends & family to play it and see if they find it fun too. And really battering out the basic gameplay in that area and learning lessons before the world is built around it (actually I think I read that they discarded that "test" area and used the lessons learned to build their world). I seem to recall reading a Bioware interview on SW:TOR mentioning a similar work procedure.
Then you read other Dev teams giving interviews and all they want to talk about is the graphics engine that they spent 2-3 years building, or about the licence, or about all the features they want to add - anything but the actual gameplay. Heck, I've been in beta tests where major physics and gameplay changes were still being made up to a week before release - that's far too late - stuff like that should be nailed down early in beta at the very latest. It's the core of the frakkin' game!
Auto Assault's Devs in particular seemed to struggle mightily with nailing down the feel of their driving experience, and imho it still felt too light and floaty at end of beta (personal bias perhaps, but I expect a truck to feel heavy). I think CO's launch day xp nerf is another example - not so much gameplay and feel related, but it does have a major effect on gameplay when an xp nerf creates a content drought in several parts of the levelling curve.
SOE were actually pretty bad for last minute gameplay changes in EQ2 beta (admit it, you're shocked!) - they're great at running betas technically (their betas often run more stable than many release games) and organisationally too (with focused testing and Devs present to take feedback on-site, sometimes on a per-quest and per-encounter basis) - but in design terms they can seem somewhat clueless. After 6+ months of having all of us closed beta-testers focused testing different areas and tweaking gameplay, to a point where myself and a lot of testers were really enjoying the game and thought it was a pretty decent, SOE pulled the entire combat abilities/spells system about a week from release and replaced it overnight. All that gameplay/balance testing for nothing - all that iteration seemingly thrown out the window. We wouldn't have minded if the new combat system was better, but it was bland. And I think they realised that because a year after release they ripped it all out and completely replaced it again (and supposedly the new system is a lot more fun - I wouldn't know, I'd quit long before then).
I think you can tell when you play a game whether gameplay and feel were on top of the devs list of things to make sure they got right - or at least to a position that they and a lot of their testers were satisfied with - ultimately you can do no more than that and there is always an element of personal taste to these things.
But I also think MMO Dev teams are often the worst offenders for not making sure the basic gameplay is as fun as it could be. We've heard that gameplay needs to be compromised because of latency issues (and yet FPSs seem to handle it just fine), or similar excuses. But I think a lot of the time the Dev team are so concerned about building a world and handling the other complexities of building an MMO, that gameplay falls by the wayside until near the end of alpha (and occasionally even the end of beta) development.
Sure, graphics are important, reward mechanisms are important, socialisation supporting features are important, story is important - but gameplay is at the core of whether any game is fun or not. It's why I still play a certain 3 levels of Halo, years after I beat the whole game. It's why I've spent so much time playing games like Civ2/4, Diablo 2, the Burnout series, Settlers 2/RoaE, etc. long after other games were uninstalled with their discs consigned to a drawer. It's why in my halls of residence at university the two most popular videogames in our block were Virtua Tennis on my Dreamcast and Mario Kart on my flatmate's N64 - nobody really cared if they won or lost (beyond short term bragging rights and teasing), but there was a continual stream of students into our flat wanting to play those games because they were just really fun to play (especially 4-player games). And ultimately it's why I play CoH, even though I have 17 characters at L50 and have experienced just about every Dev-created piece of content in the game - because I enjoy the basic gameplay.
There is just so much stuff that is fun to do that it is difficult to fit it all into one game and have it all be good.
However, it seems that MMOs may have an advantage here.
Years after launch, if you think up an awesome minigame or a cool new area or a scary new boss, you can just add it.
In theory, anyway...
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Quote:
This is exactly my point. After all this time, our mission types haven't really expanded beyond click glowy, lead out hostage/kidnap victim or beat everything up. And then a mayhem or safeguard after you do 3 - 5 of the above.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
There is just so much stuff that is fun to do that it is difficult to fit it all into one game and have it all be good.
However, it seems that MMOs may have an advantage here. Years after launch, if you think up an awesome minigame or a cool new area or a scary new boss, you can just add it. In theory, anyway... |
What we have now is nothing to sneeze at, but at the same time we're expanding costume options, power options, graphic options and epic ATs. Not to mention badges and temp powers.
But we've seemingly left behind mission types and environmental interactivity and alternate mission outcomes. None of those things are threats to the gameplay we have now...they would merely be a means to enhancing it. And as time goes on I would expect that the devs might be working on ways to add some of those things to make missions less predictable and give story arcs and missions more replay value. That's just my own thinking though...
Which begs the question: what are some of the things you would like to see implemented, and how would you like to see them done?
If the Devs are thinking in this direction, it isn't too early to suggest what we might want.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Going Rogue should give us some new indoor mission tilesets and layouts so that should help - plus a load of Dev-created arcs/missions.
Quote:
Well I've gone through some on suggestions and some in different threads.|
Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails
Which begs the question: what are some of the things you would like to see implemented, and how would you like to see them done?
If the Devs are thinking in this direction, it isn't too early to suggest what we might want. |
Here are a few things I'd like to see get added over time.
1) Story arcs that branch. I think the devs have the means to make that happen and with what GR is looking like...it may actually be coming. I'd like to play a story arc and just decide to do things differently sometimes. Making a hard decision about what to do as a hero or villain and having that translate to a change in the story somehow.
Like the Kelly Uqua arc. At no time in that arc are you ever presented with the option to betray her. Even after you know what she is...you can only continue to follow the arc and do her will. It begs to have a branching storyline. When you meet the Longbow EB and he drills it into your head about what she is...why can't I have the option to turn the tables and betray her by forming a temporary alliance with him? Even if I end up betraying him after(which would be very cool). In the game he is literally begging for me to do it. Some villains might keep working with her, but not all of them.
That kind of simple change would effectively double that value of a story arc. You can play through it and take a different path each time with different toons.
2) I'd like to be able to obtain missions in different ways. From people on the streets that I rescue and perhaps just from street sweeping I'd uncover clues to some bigger goings-on that I could get involved in. I think you suggested something like that earlier. Even having NPC civilians approach you for help. I think it would be nice to actually have the option of not pursuing the regular ingame contacts allthe time.
For villains I can see the same thing coming from beating up other groups on the streets like Longbow or the Legacy Chain and maybe getting tips on something they are doing that you can cash in on.
3) How about some actual real rescue missions? Instead of using our powers to beat up a horde of bad guys, we're using them to clear burning debris from our path so that we can lead civilians to safety after they are trapped in a burning building. Something like that could even be an add-on to the Hellions arson in Steel Canyon. Some heroes go inside the building while the others combat the fire outside for instance.
It would be nice to face the environment as an 'enemy' with some civilian lives at stake.
4) I have no idea what's possible now with our engine, but I would love to see more interactive elements in mission environments. This is a broad category so I'll just list a few things:
Smashing down doors and walls. The idea that I can always walk calmly through the front door into any villain/hero hideout is bordering on absurd. We can smash through 3 foot thick steel vault doors, but have to look for keys to access other areas in a warehouse and doors are never locked to prevent us from getting into a base.
It would also be nice to have a few dangerous objects that we can interact with in missions. Like canisters of flammable liquid or super-cooled gas that we can use on enemies.
I'd just love to see more destructible objects scattered around missions that aren't mission objectives. Stacks of crates we could topple over onto enemies, maybe using one of the mini-cranes in a warehouse to swat an enemy spawn or drive a forklift into em. Just things to break up the monotony of regular missions.
5) EB and AV fights that aren't always about huge bags of hitpoints. Can I defeat this boss by smashing the magical gems that give him his power instead of trying to take him on directly? Stuff like that.
I'd have to dig through some of my suggestions from threads before(I'm feeling kinda not in the mood for thinking right now), but there have been lots of this kind of thing from others on the forums before. I'm not sure the Devs are short on ideas about this...I think it may just be that haven't been able to prioritize them before.
I'm hoping with the staff ramp up and GR coming that we get to see some of these kinds of things come into being. I do remember Positron saying that there were people working on new game systems a while back...but he didn't elaborate.
We can only hope that in GR the Devs use everything they've learnt from the last 5 years and we get most of what's on your list.
Quote:
The Kelly Uqua arc is insulting to any character with enough intelligence to tie his own shoes. It's OBVIOUS she's a Rikti spy from practically everything you read and do, or even from just looking at her. And you NEVER catch on if you complete the final mission. You only suspect that there might be something going on, but you're too dense to figure out what. And if you fail the mission and read the Ballista's report, you only vaguely, vaguely begin to suspect that something might just possibly be wrong with Kelly Uqua, but you can't figure out what. This is worse than any incredibly obvious ninja.|
Originally Posted by Slashman
Like the Kelly Uqua arc. At no time in that arc are you ever presented with the option to betray her. Even after you know what she is...you can only continue to follow the arc and do her will. It begs to have a branching storyline. When you meet the Longbow EB and he drills it into your head about what she is...why can't I have the option to turn the tables and betray her by forming a temporary alliance with him? Even if I end up betraying him after(which would be very cool). In the game he is literally begging for me to do it. Some villains might keep working with her, but not all of them.
|
So, yeah, a branching arc that allows me to develop a brain would be VERY welcome.
Quote:
| 2) I'd like to be able to obtain missions in different ways. From people on the streets that I rescue and perhaps just from street sweeping I'd uncover clues to some bigger goings-on that I could get involved in. I think you suggested something like that earlier. Even having NPC civilians approach you for help. I think it would be nice to actually have the option of not pursuing the regular ingame contacts allthe time. |
One-off contacts scattered throughout the zone, each of which has only a single, one-shot mission. Like the little girl standing next to a manhole cover, who will ask you to save her mother from the zombies who dragged her in the sewers, or a man looking into an alley who will ask you to find his son that was kidnapped by walking plants and dragged in the building next door. Since each contact is a mission, the zone can be given a couple dozen just to keep thing interesting, and you're never introduced to them. They just talk to you if you run by them.
Another thing that came up last time was getting a "recipe" drop from beating on enemies, which is actually a plan or a case. You then get a few missions to gather "salvage" in the form of evidence (identity of mysterious villain, proof he's involved, etc.) and then "invent" the final arrest warrant at a crime lab workbench like you invent the Lost Curing Wand. The system is already in place to do that, the question is if it can.
Quote:
| Smashing down doors and walls. The idea that I can always walk calmly through the front door into any villain/hero hideout is bordering on absurd. We can smash through 3 foot thick steel vault doors, but have to look for keys to access other areas in a warehouse and doors are never locked to prevent us from getting into a base. |
Quote:
| 5) EB and AV fights that aren't always about huge bags of hitpoints. Can I defeat this boss by smashing the magical gems that give him his power instead of trying to take him on directly? Stuff like that. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Arcanaville
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Okay good point.
Although one way of dealing with the fact that team capabilities have a wide range, you could uncouple the alternative path to victory from the capabilities of the team completely (or nearly completely). For instance, you can win by clicking 8 different glowies in seperate rooms within 1 second of each other. Or, you can beat down the bad guy, who was designed to be a challenge to 6 average players.
That way, a team that can't beat down the bad guy (due to bad powerset matchup or whatever) can try to recruit warm bodies and click the glowies instead.
Just a thought.
The issue with having 'partial victory' in a scenario is mostly one of presentation I think. "You were sent to the hospital, but you have gained x component that could be used to build a device that can hurt the boss' might be viewed by some as 'losing, but with a consolation prize'.
What if a Contact said something like:
- If you defeat all of the mook foes in this warehouse, I will give you x merits.
- If you defeat the named boss, I will give you this enhancement.
- If you destroy the Mac Guffin, I will award you with x influence.
...and so on, with each goal being clearly independent?
Good idea? Bad idea?
...and Samuel Tow: glad to make you smile.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!