MoP will not have one villain, like the last three expansion had. Instead, it will be more similar to classic WoW. That's great. But is it possible?
I appreciate that Blizzard doesn't introduce the next super-villain with MoP. In fact, I criticized this about Cataclysm. Back then Blizzard said that they really think that one big evil dragon is good. And I really disagreed that it's that simple. Blizzard really needs to employ some Hollywood writer not to write quest text, but to explain to them the basic components of a good story. Watching this Extra Credits Episode would be a first step.
A super-evil, super-huge dragon that destroys stuff in a totally arbitrary manner and obviously wants to wait with the ultimative Armageddon until after you have killed him, just doesn't work. Even if I concentrate really hard to suspend my disbelieve: this is just too much. In fact, a lot of players laugh at you, if you mention that you sometimes think about the narrative in WoW. I think this shows that there really is a problem.
This doesn't mean, however, that just omitting that villain solves anything: he needs to be replaced! And if Blizzard manages to replace him with the kind of adventure that classic WoW was, I would be very, very impressed. Of course, this is impossible if you design this game for Kingslayers and Dragonslayers. Blizzard must make us forget that we just slayed the Destroyer of Worlds, ancient crazy Dragonaspect of Earth. And they must immerse us into less 'epic' stories.
This is not impossible. But looking at Blizzard's past performance when it comes to scaling 'epicness' down, I am not all that optimistic. Moreover, the player base is not used to this. They will - rightfully - ask the question why it required the Saviors of the Azeroth to rescue the cute little Panda child and her puppy.
While saving little children from danger is inherently heroic, it is also very far removed from the things Blizzard has told us are heroic in the past. This scaling-down, while arguably necessary, will prove very difficult.
Even if you killed the old god C'thun, you were still digging through poop in Hellfire Peninsula and again in Nagrand. Even if you killed Illidan and banished Kil'Jaeden, you dug through your own poop in Grizzly Hills. Even if you killed the Lich King, you rescued squirrel and baby deer and bear cubs in trees in Mt. Hyjal.
ReplyDeleteIt's a weakness in sequel escalation narratives, that only becomes more exacerbated when MMO "sequels" have to be produced once every 2 years. Have you played any Metroid games? The beginning of each one is basically about how you lose the ultra-powers you achieved in the last game.
That aside, I do mostly enjoy the narrative in WoW, but I don't actually consider the narrative to be what goes on at the "top level," so to speak. The whole Deathwing and Arthas stuff is basically metagame justification to me. What gets interesting is how the threats affect the minor characters, the NPCs in various zones, and when background gets expanded upon (like the Arthas's heart quest-line). My character is less a hero and more of a narrator, and I have always felt that is a better way of looking at the game.
Just pretend your toon is a dude from Quantum Leap, and the rest of the narrative gets a lot more interesting.
A more recent example: you are required to save sickly fawns and baby squirrels in Mt. Hyjal. The mighty warrior, whose shoulders alone could end worlds, is riding around scooping up cuddly critters and taking them out of a forest fire.
ReplyDeleteIt's a hilarious irony, a twist of expectations. I think players fall on a spectrum for how much disparity they will accept. I loved this quest, but I would not finish the poo quest in Hellfire. I'm sure there are some who flat out refused to save the fawns until it became required to unlock the daily quest hub in Firelands.
Thinking further, I enjoyed that quest because, not in spite, of its blatant disinterest in immersion. It's like the designers were looking at me and saying, "Yeah, you think you're a big damn hero. Now you need to do this piddling quest. We know you will. The gold, exp, and promise of future rewards compel you."
ReplyDeleteMUDflation... WoW is the worst at dealing with this.
ReplyDeleteVanilla felt 'right' in this regard. Items (since WoW is an item game, without question) were produced in a manner that allowed the next task to be completed, but the pace of it all, the tiered content progression at endgame... it was seemless (at the very least, compared to *now*).
Stories also were more 'light' and enjoyable. Furbolgs here, fire elementals there.... fast forward to present day, you had already killed off Rag, the air Lieutenant T-raan... and then you're doing the other elemental lords, Rag is 'risen'... Deathwing was supposed to have been 'dead' but he made a comeback... ref: Onyxia, Nef.... and the Lich King, tell me about an atrocity of good story-telling. Blizzard just can't let go of icons. LET THEM DIE OFF AND STAY DEAD. Except, well, of course, faction NPC leaders so they can make room for warmongers to reintroduce a feeling of conflict to the world?
The lore department at Blizzard sucks. There's no two ways about it. Anyone with half a wit and general understanding of journalism or storytelling can see the marvels that were WC... up to maybe mid BC in terms of lore. But this could be possibly worthy of a series of posts for a blogger out there, not just a comment from a passer-by.
Out of all the patch notes for MoP, this was the one thing they got right: the world. Forget about them pushing an even *more* casual audience with the pandas, forget about them pushing their DLC store for DIII by introducing pet battles and pets-for-sale-and-trade, forget about all the ways Blizzard is failing at not putting the cart before the horse in terms of profit:product.
Them actually being aware, on some level, in some department, the importance in getting back into the WORLD is to be commended. I will be greatly surprised if they do pull it off, because it will provide an indication to the rest of the market what many of us have known and felt all along. Face it, the market all compare themselves to WoW, skewed into thinking sub numbers reflect quality product.
It will not be at the expense of my wallet, but I *WANT* Blizzard to get the WORLD right. Since they came out and mentioned it, they need to follow through on it. And no halfsies either.
There is MUDflation for sure, Ahtchu, but honestly what can they do? Can anyone write a cohesive narrative when the entire premise is that one hero MUST be present in every single situation, and every situation has to be at least equally interesting than the last (since this is a videogame)?
ReplyDeleteIf the Blizzard folks came out with a plan for exactly 5 expansions, I think they could pace things accordingly. But that's not how episodic themeparks work. There will be WoW expansions 10 years from now - just imagine how crazy things will be then. Meanwhile, not everyone will be around for the entire arc, so you have to make each individual expansion as entertaining as the entire arc... all while being sure new players can jump right in.
That's not to say the Blizzard writers get a free pass, or anything. It's just that it is a lot more difficult than you are making it seem. And once you get away from the upper-level stuff like the flimsy reasons Deathwing wants to blow up the world (with him on it), there is a lot of good stuff underneath.
Tarnation, I'm going to write a post on this soon :P
ReplyDeleteI was just saying today that the best stories aren't about a villain, but about the real devastation the perceived villain releases.
I wonder, with the war heating up, if it won't be something like that, something like Rift, where the war causes the two races to release something really bad that then needs to be cleaned up. We'll see.
You're quite right, though, about Blizz needing to get people who understand story arcs a little better. Some of their zones worked well in Cata, but the overall arc of the game has been very wonky.
There is MUDflation for sure, Ahtchu, but honestly what can they do? Can anyone write a cohesive narrative when the entire premise is that one hero MUST be present in every single situation
ReplyDeleteI'll bite.
Why does your premise require a hero MUST be present? It doesn't. Storytelling, and subsequently, suspense of disbelief does NOT require personal involvement, let alone that the personal involvement be THE game changing factor aka heroic. In fact, many cite EQ 72man as epic, vanilla 40man as epic due to the magnitude of players COOPERATING and specifically NOT the individual aspect.
It's just that it is a lot more difficult than you are making it seem
I don't know how to say this in an assertive manner without coming across as stubborn, so I'll just say it.
It isn't. I casually gesture to the NFL, the EPL, etc.
All of these are extremely successful with thousands, millions of both devoted followers but also participants (of the sports). And it has NOTHING to do with increased performance but everything to do with moving pieces. There is an ebb and a flow to a team's season, to the individual's abilities to produce for the team, as well as that between the years.
A constant INCREASE of base abilities and resources is the cheap answer to getting someone excited. But it isn't the only way, as evidenced above. Those that fail to expand beyond it get stuck with MUDflation, and thus, stagnation. It's not your fault you don't see beyond it, because it's the model that is rampant. It isn't the only that exists, and isn't the only that works. In fact (again, evidenced above) there are other methods and models that work better.
Why does your premise require a hero MUST be present?
ReplyDeleteBecause it is an MMORPG focused on single-character progression. And however you want to minimize the hero aspect, the player's character in the game is the primary agent of change whether it's just you questing through Grizzly Hills or you as part of a 72-member raid.
It might be cool to go the Saga Frontier 2 route where you only control a specific character for a brief portion of the 200-year story, but that is not how MMOs currently work.
I casually gesture to the NFL, the EPL, etc.
Gesture towards them... as examples of compelling narratives?
A constant INCREASE of base abilities and resources is the cheap answer to getting someone excited. But it isn't the only way, as evidenced above.
Err... okay. So you are not so much providing a critique of Blizzard's handling of WoW lore than you are of condemning the entire RPG genre of videogame. In which case we are not even remotely talking about the same thing at all.
Having an expansion with no prime villain can definitely be pulled off. I think some of the comments here already said it: its been done.
ReplyDeleteWhat needs to be understood is how those things were pulled off successfully.
I'd actually argue vanilla did a focal boss, but in an almost tangential way. All us fans of Warcraft 3 *knew* we would confront Arthas when World of Warcraft was made. It was the most anticipated fight in the game in vanilla. As players edged closer to Plaguelands and then the Necropolis came, players "knew" Arthas was on the horizon. It just didn't actually happen, yet Blizzard development played on those expectations so very, very well and in a very positive way.
@Ahtchu: On mudflation, yes vanilla did a lot of things right. But I don't think you actually mention the key things here. Number one, gear was situational in vanilla. Sure, players bemaoned by the time of frost runes in Naxx, but consider what that did for item variety and serving as a release valve for item inflation. You didn't simply go for the next upgrade. You went for whichever pieces of gear would serve you best in the next fight. That might be a level 30-ish leather breastplate that helps control mobs (wink) or it could mean that no matter what gear you'r wearing, you need to be protected by flame resistance potions and enchants.
It meant your high dps wand was inferior on Vicidous if it didn't do frost damage.
Now opinions on these examples aside, these were tools at the developers' disposal that helped keep mudflation in check. Because gear wasn't strictly linear, it was situational. All that mattered was who you were fighting and you equipped accordingly.
TBC, for better or worse, changed all that and the game has been accelerating the mudflation because its become strictly linear.
One thing I think they could have done, but haven't taken the time, is mix up encounter requirements by class. Players have seen this before in many dungeons already, but they are always the exception instead of the rule. Mage tanking on High King Maulgar, Warlock (or mage) tanking on Illidari Council ...things like this make gear requirements matter less and class abilities matter more. They need to play with this a bit more and with gear a bit less.
And that brings me to my response to Azuriel on "what can they do?" ..
...there's A LOT they could be doing. But they spend their dev time on expedient things, not quality things. Sure, they are the best at shining turds. But it's still a turd. Finally they see the light with the holy trinity and I can't wait to see how Scenarios play out in MoP.
Sorry for this long reply. I should have just written a blog post ...
@Az
ReplyDeletethe player's character in the game is the primary agent of change
But not required to be THE agent of change, much less a part of it. It can be someone else, another group, after all. The premise of an online 'world' and all...
where you only control a specific character for a brief portion of the 200-year story, but that is not how MMOs currently work
Color me perplexed. This is precisely the very thing that takes place in *every* MMORPG.
as examples of compelling narratives
...as examples of systems that don't require MUDflation to achieve a sense of belonging, attachment, participation. This was rather heavily implied given the entire paragraph surrounding its statement.
Err... okay. So you are not so much providing a critique of Blizzard's handling of WoW lore than you are of condemning the entire RPG genre of videogame
Me choosing to take your bait was precisely based on the premise that 'Blizzard shouldn't be faulted' for their approach to MUDflation. Deflect the responses how you chose.
@Doo
Because gear wasn't strictly linear, it was situational
Nailed this over the left-center fence. Thank you for chiming in with this evidence of better game design. So many topics, so little time...
Of course, the 'collection' theme (gearsets, pets, mounts..) also ended up out of control too, thinking openly about it now. Different can of worms, I know, I know...
...as examples of systems that don't require MUDflation to achieve a sense of belonging, attachment, participation. This was rather heavily implied given the entire paragraph surrounding its statement.
ReplyDeleteRight, but considering none of that has anything to do with RPGs, narratives, or interaction (watching TV is passive), which was the scope of my original response, I'm not sure why it was even brought up.
Me choosing to take your bait was precisely based on the premise that 'Blizzard shouldn't be faulted' for their approach to MUDflation. Deflect the responses how you chose.
Oh, please.
My "bait" was asking how a gear-progression episodic themepark MMORPG could have been handled better. If your response is "make WoW a totally different game" then fantastic, they could not have done better.
As far as praising vanilla goes, it is pretty easy to get things right in a game that had no long-tail to worry about. Somehow I do not think light stories and situational gear works quite the same across 3+ expansions, especially when more people started raiding in the smaller sizes.
Most (every?) TV series has the same Mudflation problem. They constantly have to go beyond what they've already did to keep watchers interested and many series get worse over time because of that.
ReplyDeleteMost series don't even run for seven years or more.
@Azuriel: Don't miss the point, which was there are many ways to combat mudflation and to avoid exacerbating. Also, try not to conflate praise of old systems as belief that the old game was better. One can look at the good things about the past without assuming the past itself was glorious.
ReplyDeleteThe age of a game does *not* automatically mean it will have problems with itemization, even in a game like WoW. We have all seen them do 180's on many different systems in the game. Are we to believe they could not change their tune on what they would require of players to progress through content?
It's not a praise of vanilla as you love to try to spin every discussion. It's a way to acknowledge that at different points in the game, good ideas came along and for no known reason, they went away.
You didn't bother to give a more detailed response on how those systems from vanilla were good or bad, so I'll assume you agree those were good ways to combat linearity, and therefore mudflation :)
Direct to your last point, the beginning of a MMORPG seems to be the most difficult time to get things right. The long tail is data and information that can be used to improve and iterate on systems without completely scaring off your players. At the beginning of a game, you have very little (even after betas) data to prove anything you are doing is going to work. So I beg to differ; the longer the tail, the better your development should be.
@Azuriel: Don't miss the point, which was there are many ways to combat mudflation and to avoid exacerbating.
ReplyDeleteIn gear-progression episodic themepark MMORPGs? Because what I am reading as solutions are essentially "don't be themeparks" and "don't have gear-progression."
You didn't bother to give a more detailed response on how those systems from vanilla were good or bad, so I'll assume you agree those were good ways to combat linearity, and therefore mudflation :)
Sure, they were good systems. But what made them good was that there were only the four "tiers" to worry about. I am not sure how you sell an expansion box in which you could still get upgrades from Dire Maul.
Fundamentally, I'm expressing doubt that that same trick works twice. Plus, situational gear works in 40m, but works less in smaller raid sizes once it actually becomes reasonable to expect an upgrade.
And, as everyone seems to agree, hard gear-progression works, MUDflation or no.
Finally... why are we even really talking about gear? I was originally talking about presenting cohesive narratives when the main character never changes. As Kring mentions, this is also a problem in long-running TV shows. I love House, but they have to continue escalating situations to keep my interest; it would make for a more coherent narrative to have a definitive ending and work towards that. Can't usually do that in an MMO though.
@Azure: Ok I see. Sounds like we are generally on the same page but are just looking at different problems or even different solutions. Thanks for that.
ReplyDeleteto the comment about there only being "4 tiers". Expansions only have 3-4 tiers. All of them. I'm not sure what you're implying here.
There could still be compelling reasons to return to Dire Maul, even for gear, if that's what devs wanted to pursue. I'm not saying Dire Maul should be relevant for 7 years. I'm saying there are plenty of meaningful ways to get players into old content that don't include gear.
Hard gear progression works, yes. But it's hardly the only thing that works, nor the best working solution. The problem as I see it is it's all Blizzard seems to understand. They lack any creative vision for using different kinds of progression. I don't think they understand what "character development" means. I'll have to elaborate a bit more on a future blog post, as that's an interesting topic on its own.
Great discussion here guys.