I've never thought in depth about this sort of thing, maybe you have. I'm picturing a world full of Landmarks, that could be used to guide the player to the next point of interest. Each Landmark could have a variety of clues pointing to it. From there, each possible location (Dungeon, cave, ruins, island, etc.) nearby can have their own clues for their identities. Each clue, for both a location and then which clue specifically, is randomly chosen. Etc., etc., etc. The player finds the next clue at each location. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?
Ugggggh
That vast majority of players dont want to be running around finding clues in an MMORPG. Just like Easter, finding the eggs only goes for a short time, usually 1 time, then it becomes repetitive. Puzzles dont work with MMO's very well, not enough people want them.
I remember in Wurm the staff would sometimes (rarely) have some world puzzle challenge where people would run around the world going clue to clue to try to find the final treasure. The treasure was always something HUGE the devs would give away, and yet only 15-20 people would show up world wide. Maybe 2-4 would actually finish.
Throw a standard world boss or dragon event and immediately 100+ people would easily show.
To be fair that's, like, half the server in Wurm.
Joke aside, I do think trying to gamify the unlocking of the objective destination would likely be a bit much for most players. However the notion of utilizing more generic spawn nodes that allow for quests to be placed in a variety of places, and having interim steps/objectives that are randomized, would still go a long way to adding more exploratory elements to standard play.
Though I will say this element is also a bit subjective to presentation. For example if the "puzzle" was itself the narrative fluff of quest chain progression going to point A to do something before it sends you to point B, without expressly making you solve something to do so, you can pan things out so players are being sent to a few different places before hitting the final destination, and each location for quest progression could still be different from the last time someone ran it.
Big thing for me is not reducing the quests into daily mission type experience. When one says 'random spawn node' or 'random quest location' it shouldn't conjure the notion of "kill 10 rats" or "look for the interactable(s)", instead the spawn nodes need to have basically set pieces that can be spawned in at each location. Like little groves you can spawn different types of camps and stuff in that cater to different event sequences that the quest objective can be completed/rewarded through.
I am all for randomization, nodes, dungeons, traits, loot etc... Yep thats what keeps things fresh IMO. So I agree with you on that.
I was specifically pushing against puzzle quests, where you solve something complex to progress to next ... Maybe that works in some solo games, but in an MMO I dont see that doing well more than once. People are just not going to participate in large quantities for puzzle quests.
I've never thought in depth about this sort of thing, maybe you have. I'm picturing a world full of Landmarks, that could be used to guide the player to the next point of interest. Each Landmark could have a variety of clues pointing to it. From there, each possible location (Dungeon, cave, ruins, island, etc.) nearby can have their own clues for their identities. Each clue, for both a location and then which clue specifically, is randomly chosen. Etc., etc., etc. The player finds the next clue at each location. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?
Ugggggh
That vast majority of players dont want to be running around finding clues in an MMORPG. Just like Easter, finding the eggs only goes for a short time, usually 1 time, then it becomes repetitive. Puzzles dont work with MMO's very well, not enough people want them.
I remember in Wurm the staff would sometimes (rarely) have some world puzzle challenge where people would run around the world going clue to clue to try to find the final treasure. The treasure was always something HUGE the devs would give away, and yet only 15-20 people would show up world wide. Maybe 2-4 would actually finish.
Throw a standard world boss or dragon event and immediately 100+ people would easily show.
I understand that. You are assuming the worst from my comment.
By saying "etc., etc., etc." I was referring to the fact that such a system can possibly do that on a limited basis, and yes, have players running around the local map, or even farther. But my thinking is that that's for the top end quests, for really good items. Maybe even one-of-a-kind items at the very top end. Like a special sword or staff.
The usual quest, the most common, would be those where you find something that leads you on to one more point, and that point might even be deeper in the same dungeon you are in.
Also, who says you aren't earning a reward for each step, each location?
I would think that a system like I'm talking about would have some sort of item for each location, so that the player can trade it to another player if they don't want it themselves. The quest being locked to the item, not the player, but said item being locked to the possessor. It might even be something like a "memory token" that signifies knowledge (or maybe ownership rights) and not a real "item", although functioning like one.
My intention here was just an idea. Naturally, game design makes a big difference in how the idea might be used.
Linking quests leveling to an item reminds me alot of TOA expansion for DAOC. That expansion is pretty much universally agreed as the worst expansion, and broke DAOC.
Now with that said, its all in the implementation. So with tweaks who knows how it would play out, but you are climbing a very slippery slope there.
I've never thought in depth about this sort of thing, maybe you have. I'm picturing a world full of Landmarks, that could be used to guide the player to the next point of interest. Each Landmark could have a variety of clues pointing to it. From there, each possible location (Dungeon, cave, ruins, island, etc.) nearby can have their own clues for their identities. Each clue, for both a location and then which clue specifically, is randomly chosen. Etc., etc., etc. The player finds the next clue at each location. Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?
Ugggggh
That vast majority of players dont want to be running around finding clues in an MMORPG. Just like Easter, finding the eggs only goes for a short time, usually 1 time, then it becomes repetitive. Puzzles dont work with MMO's very well, not enough people want them.
I remember in Wurm the staff would sometimes (rarely) have some world puzzle challenge where people would run around the world going clue to clue to try to find the final treasure. The treasure was always something HUGE the devs would give away, and yet only 15-20 people would show up world wide. Maybe 2-4 would actually finish.
Throw a standard world boss or dragon event and immediately 100+ people would easily show.
I understand that. You are assuming the worst from my comment.
By saying "etc., etc., etc." I was referring to the fact that such a system can possibly do that on a limited basis, and yes, have players running around the local map, or even farther. But my thinking is that that's for the top end quests, for really good items. Maybe even one-of-a-kind items at the very top end. Like a special sword or staff.
The usual quest, the most common, would be those where you find something that leads you on to one more point, and that point might even be deeper in the same dungeon you are in.
Also, who says you aren't earning a reward for each step, each location?
I would think that a system like I'm talking about would have some sort of item for each location, so that the player can trade it to another player if they don't want it themselves. The quest being locked to the item, not the player, but said item being locked to the possessor. It might even be something like a "memory token" that signifies knowledge (or maybe ownership rights) and not a real "item", although functioning like one.
My intention here was just an idea. Naturally, game design makes a big difference in how the idea might be used.
Linking quests leveling to an item reminds me alot of TOA expansion for DAOC. That expansion is pretty much universally agreed as the worst expansion, and broke DAOC.
Now with that said, its all in the implementation. So with tweaks who knows how it would play out, but you are climbing a very slippery slope there.
It's not slippery, you're just dumping oil slick on it. Any design in any game can be poorly done. The whole point is to do them well.
You're beef is about puzzles that make players run all over the place. I never said puzzle, I specifically said "clue" because I know that puzzles are too much for most gamers who don't have the time to work through them.
Here's an example of the kind of clue I was thinking of, and some re-cap. I mentioned world landmarks as guiding clues. These would be obvious. They'd be on your maps (one way or another, as a great game design might have a deeper system than typical for maps and mapping. I don't want to explain all of that idea here.
So, and example of the clue might be "Look into the Cave below The Watcher's Eye." And there a local landmark called "The Watcher", a mountain peak that looks like it has a giant eye on it. The cave wouldn't be hard to find. Just a little trip along the base of said peak.
I also said that each landmark might have multiple options used for clues. Instead, the clue might be "Enter the Grove below The Watcher's Eye." So the players find a grove. Again, this should stick out by its beauty. Not hard to find. Or maybe the clue reads "Seek ye the Confluence Of the Rivers (south of instead if under) The Watcher's Eye." (Bold are identity key-words, all part of the large, world wide, automated and random system.) But most would be on local maps, unless it's a special quest for uber goodies.
I think the only way one can play the same mmorpg for years or decades is if they are just grinders. They grind and grind and do the same thing every day.
I played pokemon go for 7 years. The game is boring as hell, but I just keep doing it like an addiction.
Most of the people who actually mmorpg are like that to me. At least most of the people willing to play the same games for years or decades is that way.
That is why ARPG is so popular. There isn't exactly that much content, it's just a repetitive task people keep doing it. Arguably MOBA is sort of the same thing.
I'm an explorer type. That's how I like to play. For others, they like the Quest driven system. But I get tired of being locked out of content because I didn't run to the nearest Pez dispenser and just follow the bread crumbs as designed.
Exploration gives you a sense of accomplishment, you find it and sometimes have to figure it out to gain access. You did something. That's what's so boring to me with the Quest designs. They just give it to you, and you just do what they give you like a rat in a maze. Follow the cheese...not fun.
Wouldn't it be nice if you can play the same content from both perspectives in the same game world?
As you can probably guess, I'm gonna disagree with you :P
What you've mostly described is a preference for sandbox over themepark, I don't think it's really about exploration vs quests. I also suspect that this is more about matching your personality with a design paradigm. You prefer more player freedom and choice, which leads you towards sandbox (im similar). Others prefer more hand-holding and guidance.
I also think there are many, many more ways to play a game than simply being an explorer (or not, don't even know what the opposite would be. Tourist?)
For example, the absolute top priority for me with an RPG is a deep combat system. I only care about exploration if that exploration leads me to interesting fights where I can enjoy the combat. I only care about quests if they lead me to interesting bosses. Depth is also only relevant when there is a challenge, so difficult of a game is more important to me than exploration.
I do definitely have a preference for sandbox (playing SWGEmu atm), for freedom, for open exploration. But I'd trade that all in in a heartbeat for an excellent combat system!
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I'm an explorer type. That's how I like to play. For others, they like the Quest driven system. But I get tired of being locked out of content because I didn't run to the nearest Pez dispenser and just follow the bread crumbs as designed.
Exploration gives you a sense of accomplishment, you find it and sometimes have to figure it out to gain access. You did something. That's what's so boring to me with the Quest designs. They just give it to you, and you just do what they give you like a rat in a maze. Follow the cheese...not fun.
Wouldn't it be nice if you can play the same content from both perspectives in the same game world?
As you can probably guess, I'm gonna disagree with you :P
What you've mostly described is a preference for sandbox over themepark, I don't think it's really about exploration vs quests. I also suspect that this is more about matching your personality with a design paradigm. You prefer more player freedom and choice, which leads you towards sandbox (im similar). Others prefer more hand-holding and guidance.
I also think there are many, many more ways to play a game than simply being an explorer (or not, don't even know what the opposite would be. Tourist?)
For example, the absolute top priority for me with an RPG is a deep combat system. I only care about exploration if that exploration leads me to interesting fights where I can enjoy the combat. I only care about quests if they lead me to interesting bosses. Depth is also only relevant when there is a challenge, so difficult of a game is more important to me than exploration.
I do definitely have a preference for sandbox (playing SWGEmu atm), for freedom, for open exploration. But I'd trade that all in in a heartbeat for an excellent combat system!
While I definitely have a preference for Sandbox, as you knew before even opening this post, I only displayed that as a means to distinguish exploration from quest driven.
There is nothing in any of my posts here that distinguishes sandbox and quest leveling. Take that quest driven game, usually Themepark if not always, and add scaling, and you can have open world exploration just the same. In fact, I've been waiting for someone to mention ESO as an example of "already have it", but it hasn't happened.
Your point about deep combat, and its importance to you relative to sandbox, is a different subject all together. The fact that you made this comment seems to be directed solely at my desire for Sandbox games. Which isn't important to this subject, and I've avoided. (See "ESO" above.)
But then, just as you knew me before opening this post, I knew you too. So we're even.
I like and enjoy being able explore and discover something with my own eyes; anything that is unknown and dripping with world building and it's own atmosphere.
The problem i struggle with and have for years, is that video games rarely ever allow someone to go into a game world completely blind.
Years before a game is even available to play; trailers, news articles, reveiws, previews, game communities- they all basically give away and spoil everything that i find exciting about a video games' world.
But then again, it's rare that a game world is on the level of interesting and alive enough to want to go into it blind- Elden Ring i would say was the most recent experience i had personally that i would love to walk into it with no information.
I think this is why i love Sci-fi games lately; especially ones that allow you to explore space and different planets with the only information being one of observation.
StarField is my last hope for a good exploration video game.
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013 Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005 Fishing in RL since 1992 Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
I like and enjoy being able explore and discover something with my own eyes; anything that is unknown and dripping with world building and it's own atmosphere.
The problem i struggle with and have for years, is that video games rarely ever allow someone to go into a game world completely blind.
Years before a game is even available to play; trailers, news articles, reveiws, previews, game communities- they all basically give away and spoil everything that i find exciting about a video games' world.
But then again, it's rare that a game world is on the level of interesting and alive enough to want to go into it blind- Elden Ring i would say was the most recent experience i had personally that i would love to walk into it with no information.
I think this is why i love Sci-fi games lately; especially ones that allow you to explore space and different planets with the only information being one of observation.
StarField is my last hope for a good exploration video game.
"The problem i struggle with and have for years, is that video games rarely ever allow someone to go into a game world completely blind."
Personally, I think having a look at the game world can be a good thing, because that simulates that the world existed before you were there. It serves as some world knowledge being available as one might expect in a living "world."
The kind of things I'd like to see are limited discoveries through testing. Then, after testing, and before release, add in that kind of content on a wide scale.
- MOBs can be rearranged and formed into "cults" per the Lore, and with meaning to be discovered. - Clues to mysteries waiting to be discovered can be added. Tomes, wall murals, alters, statues, wall maps, runic symbols, etc., that have meanings waiting for discovery. - The landscape can be dotted with additional things to find. Small ruins, caves and small dungeons, cemeteries, crumbled statues, ancient fountains of mysterious function, etc. - Mechanical things already tested as a system (levers, etc.) can be added along with what they control.
And then, over time after release, more still can be secretly added. So, I think there's a way to make exploration a key selling point of a game.
I'm an explorer type. That's how I like to play. For others, they like the Quest driven system. But I get tired of being locked out of content because I didn't run to the nearest Pez dispenser and just follow the bread crumbs as designed.
Exploration gives you a sense of accomplishment, you find it and sometimes have to figure it out to gain access. You did something. That's what's so boring to me with the Quest designs. They just give it to you, and you just do what they give you like a rat in a maze. Follow the cheese...not fun.
Wouldn't it be nice if you can play the same content from both perspectives in the same game world?
As you can probably guess, I'm gonna disagree with you :P
What you've mostly described is a preference for sandbox over themepark, I don't think it's really about exploration vs quests. I also suspect that this is more about matching your personality with a design paradigm. You prefer more player freedom and choice, which leads you towards sandbox (im similar). Others prefer more hand-holding and guidance.
I also think there are many, many more ways to play a game than simply being an explorer (or not, don't even know what the opposite would be. Tourist?)
For example, the absolute top priority for me with an RPG is a deep combat system. I only care about exploration if that exploration leads me to interesting fights where I can enjoy the combat. I only care about quests if they lead me to interesting bosses. Depth is also only relevant when there is a challenge, so difficult of a game is more important to me than exploration.
I do definitely have a preference for sandbox (playing SWGEmu atm), for freedom, for open exploration. But I'd trade that all in in a heartbeat for an excellent combat system!
I forgot this the first time I replied, and then several times after I remembered it too.
You said: "I also think there are many, many more ways to play a game than simply being an explorer (or not, don't even know what the opposite would be. Tourist?)"
I would say the hand-holders are the opposite to Explorer.
But a bigger point is all the other ways to play. You're right, I think. Especially in the economic game play. Back in the days before Themepark took over, there were a good number of gamers who really enjoyed that game. Buying, selling, I even knew of gamers who made unofficial supply "contracts" with other players to boost their economic game. It was much more a realistic simulation in the early years than it's become now.
Then there were those who loved "treasure hunting" if that was in the game. Fishing was rewarding to some if there were rewards for that. Often gamers who were RL fishermen. Hell, UO had a multi-shard Guild called the "Fishing Council of Britannia" before there was any rewards added.
There used to be posts on forums from people who wanted to breed "pets." I don't think they wanted the simple versions that we've seen in the following years.
Players put on all kinds of player events too. Fairs, murder mysteries, chess competitions, story telling events, plays, and whatever else.
There's a lot that's been left off the table as this Themepark, based on Level Grind, has taken over. Not because they couldn't do some of this stuff, but because they needed to spend their time to create their load of fixed content that always runs short anyways. I think they were right about what players wanted when they started it, but it always seemed obvious that it would run out of steam at some point.
I like to take a step back and look at this from a basic design perspective. There are two parts to a game - the objective and how you get there (game loop). Some games have only one of each, while others can have multiples of each. How these two components fit together is a large reason why some games are more compelling than others, even within the same genre.
When gameplay elements that end up in the game loop don't directly connect with the objective, they can feel tedious. There is food in lots of MMOs, but the objective is to beat some raid boss (let's just say, for simplicity's sake). So what's the point of the food? Ok, let's make it provide a buff. How necessary is having that buff to beat the boss? Does it provide a specific counter to some strength of that raid boss? Now you have to have it. But it's not about the food at all. The buff could've been awarded to your character after running around a tree 12 times, or any random act. It's some tedious hoop to jump through to get the buff to beat the boss. Contrast that with a survival game, where the objective is to survive as long as you can and sustaining your character's ever-depleting resources is the game loop. All the gathering, prepping, etc. is the game.
I think that MMOs haven't done a good job of connecting the many gameplay elements an open world can sustain, like exploration, to the game's objectives. One reason is they haven't come up with good objectives to begin with. What's the objective in WoW? Max level? Max gear? Finish the latest expansion's story?
So as much as I like ideas about the implementation of a mechanic in the game loop, for something like exploration I want to know how it ties to the objective of the game. What drives the exploration, beyond a personal interest?
(As a quick aside, I will say that sandboxes are a little different than other types of games, in that they provide gameplay elements but leave the objectives (at least to some degree) up to the players. In that way, a sandbox is only a partial game. The players bring the other part. The right group of people in the right sandbox can have an incredibly deep and fulfilling experience, but go into any sandbox expecting the game to give you everything and it will feel empty and incomplete.)
I like to take a step back and look at this from a basic design perspective. There are two parts to a game - the objective and how you get there (game loop). Some games have only one of each, while others can have multiples of each. How these two components fit together is a large reason why some games are more compelling than others, even within the same genre.
When gameplay elements that end up in the game loop don't directly connect with the objective, they can feel tedious. There is food in lots of MMOs, but the objective is to beat some raid boss (let's just say, for simplicity's sake). So what's the point of the food? Ok, let's make it provide a buff. How necessary is having that buff to beat the boss? Does it provide a specific counter to some strength of that raid boss? Now you have to have it. But it's not about the food at all. The buff could've been awarded to your character after running around a tree 12 times, or any random act. It's some tedious hoop to jump through to get the buff to beat the boss. Contrast that with a survival game, where the objective is to survive as long as you can and sustaining your character's ever-depleting resources is the game loop. All the gathering, prepping, etc. is the game.
I think that MMOs haven't done a good job of connecting the many gameplay elements an open world can sustain, like exploration, to the game's objectives. One reason is they haven't come up with good objectives to begin with. What's the objective in WoW? Max level? Max gear? Finish the latest expansion's story?
So as much as I like ideas about the implementation of a mechanic in the game loop, for something like exploration I want to know how it ties to the objective of the game. What drives the exploration, beyond a personal interest?
(As a quick aside, I will say that sandboxes are a little different than other types of games, in that they provide gameplay elements but leave the objectives (at least to some degree) up to the players. In that way, a sandbox is only a partial game. The players bring the other part. The right group of people in the right sandbox can have an incredibly deep and fulfilling experience, but go into any sandbox expecting the game to give you everything and it will feel empty and incomplete.)
That's a great post, but that's just the point, Sandbox isn't just a game, it's a world. For a while, EA had the slogan "We Create Worlds." They dropped that as the Themepark design took center stage. That's what gamers wanted, a "great game." At the time, though, and based on their previous experiences with D&D and all of the SP games based off of it. The fixed content and defined paths with goals defined as victory, the exact same as every other player (with some deviation per Class), lacks something. A unique experience. Choice. Personal goals.
And that's where the players "bring the other part." A lot of the "win" in this perspective is the experience. Doing something that is unusual or different can have its own rewards. Making your way in a World, sometimes your own way, has its rewards. Being the first to come up with something brings some fame and thus its own reward.
But even so, even "Sandbox Worlds" also "need game." That's not a problem, as it's basically the same thing as Themeparks, just without the Themepark. Since you can't do it all in one play session, what's the difference anyways? Instead of following the defined path through each Dungeon and place of interest, you just go to each Dungeon and place of interest.
But you get so much more, through exploration and all of the choices you can pick from. Those personal goals.
That's not "empty and incomplete." It's just perceived that way because that's what people say. People who want "gamey", and defined paths, and lists of what quests they did, and question marks over heads to show them where the next step is. (There's nothing wrong with that, except to those who want more.)
I like to take a step back and look at this from a basic design perspective. There are two parts to a game - the objective and how you get there (game loop). Some games have only one of each, while others can have multiples of each. How these two components fit together is a large reason why some games are more compelling than others, even within the same genre.
[--snip--]
(As a quick aside, I will say that sandboxes are a little different than other types of games, in that they provide gameplay elements but leave the objectives (at least to some degree) up to the players. In that way, a sandbox is only a partial game. The players bring the other part. The right group of people in the right sandbox can have an incredibly deep and fulfilling experience, but go into any sandbox expecting the game to give you everything and it will feel empty and incomplete.)
That's a great post, but that's just the point, Sandbox isn't just a game, it's a world. For a while, EA had the slogan "We Create Worlds." They dropped that as the Themepark design took center stage. That's what gamers wanted, a "great game." At the time, though, and based on their previous experiences with D&D and all of the SP games based off of it. The fixed content and defined paths with goals defined as victory, the exact same as every other player (with some deviation per Class), lacks something. A unique experience. Choice. Personal goals.
And that's where the players "bring the other part." A lot of the "win" in this perspective is the experience. Doing something that is unusual or different can have its own rewards. Making your way in a World, sometimes your own way, has its rewards. Being the first to come up with something brings some fame and thus its own reward.
But even so, even "Sandbox Worlds" also "need game." That's not a problem, as it's basically the same thing as Themeparks, just without the Themepark. Since you can't do it all in one play session, what's the difference anyways? Instead of following the defined path through each Dungeon and place of interest, you just go to each Dungeon and place of interest.
But you get so much more, through exploration and all of the choices you can pick from. Those personal goals.
That's not "empty and incomplete." It's just perceived that way because that's what people say. People who want "gamey", and defined paths, and lists of what quests they did, and question marks over heads to show them where the next step is. (There's nothing wrong with that, except to those who want more.)
Part of my point is to not confuse exploration, or any other mechanic, with sandbox vs themepark. Inherently, sandbox is more flexible because it is a collection of setting(s) and mechanics that players can use to "build their own game". But you could have such mechanics in games with clear objectives. Let's take exploration as the example, since that was your initial topic.
One of the games these last few years where I have found random exploration of the open world to be fun and rewarding has been Zelda: Breath of the Wild. That's a game with clear objectives, including a main storyline and side-quests, yet I would often simply load the game and head off in some direction that caught my fancy. Now I don't want to sit here and dissect that game, but there were some clear design choices that made exploration serve that game and feel worthwhile. First, mechanics like temperature, or climbing and swimming tied to endurance, meant that zones could be different and present unique challenges. These could then be managed by cooking with ingredients collected in different locations for unique buffs or acquiring special gear from around the world. Layer onto that a densely crafted world with puzzles that provided different levels of rewards, from korok seeds to shrines, and there was always something to discover. Finally, even more broadly disliked mechanics like low weapon durability meant that you were constantly exploring to replace items essential to completing the game.
Then there's Eve Online, a game that I've played on and off over the years. There are NPC provided "missions" in Eve, but for all intents and purposes Eve is a proper sandbox. The first time I tried to play over a decade ago, I went in expecting a "game", and after the initial tutorial just sat around wondering what I was "supposed" to do. I went out and mined a little to make some ISK (money) so I could afford other ships, and quickly lost interest because I didn't have a use for those other ships. The game just felt directionless and empty. But I have always liked spaceships so some time later I decided to hop back in. This time, I had given it some thought and realized that this wasn't a game where the objectives were defined by the developers. I needed to find my own objectives and a community to play with. As soon as I did that, the game changed and I found myself drawn into the political conflict our corp was in. Mining, hauling, exploring markets for resources to fund a war, or flying around in a stealth ship scouting, so much of my time was spent in some form of exploration driven by the needs of my corp. It was rewarding because it served us in reaching (or at least trying to reach) our objectives.
So regardless of sandbox, themepark, or other game type, exploration needs to serve objectives. In a sandbox, players create those objectives but the mechanics provided to players must enable exploration-dependent objectives. If we are talking sandbox games specifically, we need to talk about what types of objectives we want players to be able to create for themselves and how the mechanics that serve those objectives can rely on or drive exploration.
I like to take a step back and look at this from a basic design perspective. There are two parts to a game - the objective and how you get there (game loop). Some games have only one of each, while others can have multiples of each. How these two components fit together is a large reason why some games are more compelling than others, even within the same genre.
[--snip--]
(As a quick aside, I will say that sandboxes are a little different than other types of games, in that they provide gameplay elements but leave the objectives (at least to some degree) up to the players. In that way, a sandbox is only a partial game. The players bring the other part. The right group of people in the right sandbox can have an incredibly deep and fulfilling experience, but go into any sandbox expecting the game to give you everything and it will feel empty and incomplete.)
That's a great post, but that's just the point, Sandbox isn't just a game, it's a world. For a while, EA had the slogan "We Create Worlds." They dropped that as the Themepark design took center stage. That's what gamers wanted, a "great game." At the time, though, and based on their previous experiences with D&D and all of the SP games based off of it. The fixed content and defined paths with goals defined as victory, the exact same as every other player (with some deviation per Class), lacks something. A unique experience. Choice. Personal goals.
And that's where the players "bring the other part." A lot of the "win" in this perspective is the experience. Doing something that is unusual or different can have its own rewards. Making your way in a World, sometimes your own way, has its rewards. Being the first to come up with something brings some fame and thus its own reward.
But even so, even "Sandbox Worlds" also "need game." That's not a problem, as it's basically the same thing as Themeparks, just without the Themepark. Since you can't do it all in one play session, what's the difference anyways? Instead of following the defined path through each Dungeon and place of interest, you just go to each Dungeon and place of interest.
But you get so much more, through exploration and all of the choices you can pick from. Those personal goals.
That's not "empty and incomplete." It's just perceived that way because that's what people say. People who want "gamey", and defined paths, and lists of what quests they did, and question marks over heads to show them where the next step is. (There's nothing wrong with that, except to those who want more.)
Part of my point is to not confuse exploration, or any other mechanic, with sandbox vs themepark. Inherently, sandbox is more flexible because it is a collection of setting(s) and mechanics that players can use to "build their own game". But you could have such mechanics in games with clear objectives. Let's take exploration as the example, since that was your initial topic.
(Snip)
So regardless of sandbox, themepark, or other game type, exploration needs to serve objectives. In a sandbox, players create those objectives but the mechanics provided to players must enable exploration-dependent objectives. If we are talking sandbox games specifically, we need to talk about what types of objectives we want players to be able to create for themselves and how the mechanics that serve those objectives can rely on or drive exploration.
Yes, I agree. What I don't want to see is more "quests" that everyone does in a fixed pattern. Quests are fine for a nudge into something to do, but they are meaningless otherwise. Especially with levels as they are.
I have more to say on this but there's so much to relate. I'm thinking it over as to the presentation.
How about highlighted questing in the "meat" of MMO and sandbox exploration in the "bread" of the MMO sandwich? Op is right that both ways have their advantages, hard to run together though.
I forgot this the first time I replied, and then several times after I remembered it too.
You said: "I also think there are many, many more ways to play a game than simply being an explorer (or not, don't even know what the opposite would be. Tourist?)"
I would say the hand-holders are the opposite to Explorer.
But a bigger point is all the other ways to play. You're right, I think. Especially in the economic game play. Back in the days before Themepark took over, there were a good number of gamers who really enjoyed that game. Buying, selling, I even knew of gamers who made unofficial supply "contracts" with other players to boost their economic game. It was much more a realistic simulation in the early years than it's become now.
Then there were those who loved "treasure hunting" if that was in the game. Fishing was rewarding to some if there were rewards for that. Often gamers who were RL fishermen. Hell, UO had a multi-shard Guild called the "Fishing Council of Britannia" before there was any rewards added.
There used to be posts on forums from people who wanted to breed "pets." I don't think they wanted the simple versions that we've seen in the following years.
Players put on all kinds of player events too. Fairs, murder mysteries, chess competitions, story telling events, plays, and whatever else.
There's a lot that's been left off the table as this Themepark, based on Level Grind, has taken over. Not because they couldn't do some of this stuff, but because they needed to spend their time to create their load of fixed content that always runs short anyways. I think they were right about what players wanted when they started it, but it always seemed obvious that it would run out of steam at some point.
Well, if we go by Bartle's taxonomy, there are 4 ways to play: explorer, killer, achiever, and socialiser.
I don't think being either sandbox or themepark has much effect on those, you can support all 4 playstyles using either design style. It just comes down to whether the developers wish to support lots of different playstyles, and as you've pointed out, most of them don't bother any more.
When it comes to the explorer style of play, I feel like the bigger issue is linear vs non-linear.
In a linear game, you're really led along the same route as everyone else. You can still get a sense of exploration, there will probably still be areas off the beaten track for you to find. Plus, even if it is linear, you can still feel like an explorer! Just because a quest led me somewhere, doesn't me it isn't still awesome to visit a new city for the first time, or to see a cool dragon out in the wilds.
In a non-linear game, there is more player agency involved in exploration, which can increase your sense of achievement when you find something new. But the devs still need to design some cool stuff for you to find, otherwise you'll be an explorer with nothing worth exploring!
Beyond all of that, I feel like there is a core issue at the heart of modern RPGs: the removal of choice.
Making choices about your role and then seeing how your choices affect your character is the core of roleplaying. That's the whole point of roleplaying! There are big choices (melee dps or healer?), smaller choices (spec into burst dps or sustained?) then micro choices (spam my AoE skills for max damage, or weave in some mitigation to help out the healers?). Each of these choices has an effect on how your character performs.
But RPG makers keep removing choices. Fewer combat roles to choose from. Fewer viable ways to build your character. Combat design that forces you to play a specific way in order to be successful. Removal of secondary roles (like merchent, fisherman etc). Even the RPGs that have started introducing personality roleplaying (e.g. lightside / darkside choices in swtor) are doing it badly, as the choices you make are often without consequences.
And what have all these choices been replaced by?
Fucking generic stories with voice overs. What a waste!
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
When it comes to the explorer style of play, I feel like the bigger issue is linear vs non-linear.
In a linear game, you're really led along the same route as everyone else. You can still get a sense of exploration, there will probably still be areas off the beaten track for you to find. Plus, even if it is linear, you can still feel like an explorer! Just because a quest led me somewhere, doesn't me it isn't still awesome to visit a new city for the first time, or to see a cool dragon out in the wilds.
In a non-linear game, there is more player agency involved in exploration, which can increase your sense of achievement when you find something new. But the devs still need to design some cool stuff for you to find, otherwise you'll be an explorer with nothing worth exploring!
...
I also think "explorer" as player type is not necessarily the same thing as "exploring" in an RPG setting. An explorer-type player, in my understanding, enjoys finding secrets built into a game. These secrets could be in the game "world" of an RPG or in some other aspect of a game. You discover a special move in a fighting game and spend the next two hours trying to find button combinations for other special moves? You're "exploring". The reward isn't in winning, necessarily. You could win without knowing these special moves. But the idea that there are secrets to uncover is thrilling to anyone who enjoys "exploration".
Then there's exploration in terms of having to travel to new areas and uncover / unlock the map. This type of exploration could still be filled with secrets that pique the "explorer's" interest, or it could feel like a guided tour where everyone will inevitably "discover" everything. Like you said, no choice. That type of exploration isn't the same thing and doesn't scratch the same itch.
Of course, one problem with using "secrets" to drive exploration is that they don't stay secret for long, especially in the age of the internet. And attempting to make the riddles or puzzles more vague causes players to view game guides and helper add-ons as ever more necessary to play the game. Some of this can be addressed with randomization and procedural generation. But I agree that options and choice are important, and that starts with realizing that exploration can be tied to many aspects of game-play.
Also, some random thoughts on how current designs can be shifted towards
more meaningful exploration (and these are not at all the only
approaches to take or easy to implement, just fun musings):
- Do away with scaling of
health / damage in proportion to level, for the player and mobs.
Differentiate "low-level" zones from "high-level" zones in the density /
coordination of enemies, in "smarter" enemies that utilize additional
game mechanics and abilities, etc. And a player can overcome these more
challenging mobs not by doing exponentially more damage, but by the
abilities they've acquired or resources they've discovered.
-
Do away with "supermarket" hubs that serve as one-stop-shops for all
the player's needs. Local trainers have their own unique skills to
teach, local traders / crafters their own unique trades and crafts. Players who
learn blacksmithing from the dwarves make distinctly different items
than those who learn it from humans. Or elves. And these differences
have to be significant to present a player with meaningful options and
tradeoffs. Again, consider how this ties to the unique challenges
different zone and enemy types present.
- Use a variety of
game features (visuals / sounds) in player progression. As your hunter
gets better at tracking / scouting, provide auditory cues for enemies
further out than what you got before, or use textures with more distinct
visual cues for a hidden path in the woods. Essentially, imagine a low
level player in the forest would have the forest floor rendered with
less distinct vegetation and fewer variety, because they can't really
tell any of it apart. As they level, the game would start to use
previously unused assets that show muddy patches where a path might be,
or different types of plants that indicate something useful or
gatherable, etc. Attach (slight) auditory cues to abilities, then weave
those tones in the environmental sounds and ambience of some ruins to nudge a player towards
using those abilities to uncover something. This can be randomized to
some extent as well, or even connected to a character's level of progression.
- And don't tie all of
this to a single "level" progression. Your character may level up their
time exploring the forests and a walk in the woods would yield the full
breadth of art and sound assets the game has to offer for the woods,
but go through a cave system in the mountains and you may not be able to
tell one boulder from another. Characters can make progress across
different systems independently, based on what they choose to do and
where. And their ability to fight, gather, and craft in different
environments would differ. "Leveling" should be about character
progression in the literary sense -> your character's journey and
development. "Max level" should not be a game objective.
-
What's the game objective? So many ways to tackle this. One thing I'd like -> run a Civ-like simulation of several NPC
factions playing turn-based strategy across a world map in the
background. Wars are declared. Peace is made. Cities build and raised.
Resources sought, discovered, and fought over. Players don't see that "game". Their characters get a first-person (or third-person) view of it, by occupying the "game world" that Civ-like map represents.
And your character's objective is what you want it to be against that
backdrop. A war was declared and you choose to support a side. Or supply
both sides with resources. Or flee to safer harbors. And the
consequences of the NPCs' global campaign are new ruins to explore,
mysteries to discover, resources to acquire, and so on. Essentially, the NPCs and their quests (which would be the "themepark" elements) are actually making decisions in the same "sandbox" you are. Go to an NPC town and benefit from some "themepark-ish" direction if you are lost or unsure, but what is happening and what you get roped into will change as the underlying simulation progresses.
Yes,
yes, this is all very complicated and impractical, but we're not
talking about how exactly to get it all done here. These are just some musings of how these game systems can be iterated on to breathe additional life into these worlds.
Also, some random thoughts on how current designs can be shifted towards
more meaningful exploration (and these are not at all the only
approaches to take or easy to implement, just fun musings):
- Do away with scaling of
health / damage in proportion to level, for the player and mobs.
Differentiate "low-level" zones from "high-level" zones in the density /
coordination of enemies, in "smarter" enemies that utilize additional
game mechanics and abilities, etc. And a player can overcome these more
challenging mobs not by doing exponentially more damage, but by the
abilities they've acquired or resources they've discovered.
-
Do away with "supermarket" hubs that serve as one-stop-shops for all
the player's needs. Local trainers have their own unique skills to
teach, local traders / crafters their own unique trades and crafts. Players who
learn blacksmithing from the dwarves make distinctly different items
than those who learn it from humans. Or elves. And these differences
have to be significant to present a player with meaningful options and
tradeoffs. Again, consider how this ties to the unique challenges
different zone and enemy types present.
- Use a variety of
game features (visuals / sounds) in player progression. As your hunter
gets better at tracking / scouting, provide auditory cues for enemies
further out than what you got before, or use textures with more distinct
visual cues for a hidden path in the woods. Essentially, imagine a low
level player in the forest would have the forest floor rendered with
less distinct vegetation and fewer variety, because they can't really
tell any of it apart. As they level, the game would start to use
previously unused assets that show muddy patches where a path might be,
or different types of plants that indicate something useful or
gatherable, etc. Attach (slight) auditory cues to abilities, then weave
those tones in the environmental sounds and ambience of some ruins to nudge a player towards
using those abilities to uncover something. This can be randomized to
some extent as well, or even connected to a character's level of progression.
- And don't tie all of
this to a single "level" progression. Your character may level up their
time exploring the forests and a walk in the woods would yield the full
breadth of art and sound assets the game has to offer for the woods,
but go through a cave system in the mountains and you may not be able to
tell one boulder from another. Characters can make progress across
different systems independently, based on what they choose to do and
where. And their ability to fight, gather, and craft in different
environments would differ. "Leveling" should be about character
progression in the literary sense -> your character's journey and
development. "Max level" should not be a game objective.
-
What's the game objective? So many ways to tackle this. One thing I'd like -> run a Civ-like simulation of several NPC
factions playing turn-based strategy across a world map in the
background. Wars are declared. Peace is made. Cities build and raised.
Resources sought, discovered, and fought over. Players don't see that "game". Their characters get a first-person (or third-person) view of it, by occupying the "game world" that Civ-like map represents.
And your character's objective is what you want it to be against that
backdrop. A war was declared and you choose to support a side. Or supply
both sides with resources. Or flee to safer harbors. And the
consequences of the NPCs' global campaign are new ruins to explore,
mysteries to discover, resources to acquire, and so on. Essentially, the NPCs and their quests (which would be the "themepark" elements) are actually making decisions in the same "sandbox" you are. Go to an NPC town and benefit from some "themepark-ish" direction if you are lost or unsure, but what is happening and what you get roped into will change as the underlying simulation progresses.
Yes,
yes, this is all very complicated and impractical, but we're not
talking about how exactly to get it all done here. These are just some musings of how these game systems can be iterated on to breathe additional life into these worlds.
I kind of like your general concept of ideas you are putting out. I would certainly be interested in trying something like this.
There are alot of ideas to unpack in this one post, so I will just focus on the level progression and mob health/complexity issues for now.
I think this idea of limiting level progression is interesting in theory, but not sure in practice it would work. I think many people need to be progressing in some type of skill to feel they are getting stronger within the game world.
I am not a big fan of on the rails themeparks, but at the same time, its hard to imagine a game world where at least some skills are not progressing/improving over time.
Having all mobs with completely static health could be a problem.
I do like the idea of mobs getting more complex in different areas, where the deeper/further you go, the harder/complex it gets, that way people with different skill levels (outside the game) can explore until the content becomes too challenging for the group, then they move horizontally within that area where they feel comfortable at the max challenge for their particular group.
Are not some games doing this already thou, with Mythic dungeons etc..? Maybe the health is not static, but I dont see that as a signficant difference.
Also, some random thoughts on how current designs can be shifted towards
more meaningful exploration (and these are not at all the only
approaches to take or easy to implement, just fun musings):
- Do away with scaling of
health / damage in proportion to level, for the player and mobs.
Differentiate "low-level" zones from "high-level" zones in the density /
coordination of enemies, in "smarter" enemies that utilize additional
game mechanics and abilities, etc. And a player can overcome these more
challenging mobs not by doing exponentially more damage, but by the
abilities they've acquired or resources they've discovered.
-
Do away with "supermarket" hubs that serve as one-stop-shops for all
the player's needs. Local trainers have their own unique skills to
teach, local traders / crafters their own unique trades and crafts. Players who
learn blacksmithing from the dwarves make distinctly different items
than those who learn it from humans. Or elves. And these differences
have to be significant to present a player with meaningful options and
tradeoffs. Again, consider how this ties to the unique challenges
different zone and enemy types present.
- Use a variety of
game features (visuals / sounds) in player progression. As your hunter
gets better at tracking / scouting, provide auditory cues for enemies
further out than what you got before, or use textures with more distinct
visual cues for a hidden path in the woods. Essentially, imagine a low
level player in the forest would have the forest floor rendered with
less distinct vegetation and fewer variety, because they can't really
tell any of it apart. As they level, the game would start to use
previously unused assets that show muddy patches where a path might be,
or different types of plants that indicate something useful or
gatherable, etc. Attach (slight) auditory cues to abilities, then weave
those tones in the environmental sounds and ambience of some ruins to nudge a player towards
using those abilities to uncover something. This can be randomized to
some extent as well, or even connected to a character's level of progression.
- And don't tie all of
this to a single "level" progression. Your character may level up their
time exploring the forests and a walk in the woods would yield the full
breadth of art and sound assets the game has to offer for the woods,
but go through a cave system in the mountains and you may not be able to
tell one boulder from another. Characters can make progress across
different systems independently, based on what they choose to do and
where. And their ability to fight, gather, and craft in different
environments would differ. "Leveling" should be about character
progression in the literary sense -> your character's journey and
development. "Max level" should not be a game objective.
-
What's the game objective? So many ways to tackle this. One thing I'd like -> run a Civ-like simulation of several NPC
factions playing turn-based strategy across a world map in the
background. Wars are declared. Peace is made. Cities build and raised.
Resources sought, discovered, and fought over. Players don't see that "game". Their characters get a first-person (or third-person) view of it, by occupying the "game world" that Civ-like map represents.
And your character's objective is what you want it to be against that
backdrop. A war was declared and you choose to support a side. Or supply
both sides with resources. Or flee to safer harbors. And the
consequences of the NPCs' global campaign are new ruins to explore,
mysteries to discover, resources to acquire, and so on. Essentially, the NPCs and their quests (which would be the "themepark" elements) are actually making decisions in the same "sandbox" you are. Go to an NPC town and benefit from some "themepark-ish" direction if you are lost or unsure, but what is happening and what you get roped into will change as the underlying simulation progresses.
Yes,
yes, this is all very complicated and impractical, but we're not
talking about how exactly to get it all done here. These are just some musings of how these game systems can be iterated on to breathe additional life into these worlds.
I really, really like this post. You have some great concepts in this post. Well worth "exploring" for better, more exciting games.
Also, some random thoughts on how current designs can be shifted towards
more meaningful exploration (and these are not at all the only
approaches to take or easy to implement, just fun musings):
- Do away with scaling of
health / damage in proportion to level, for the player and mobs.
Differentiate "low-level" zones from "high-level" zones in the density /
coordination of enemies, in "smarter" enemies that utilize additional
game mechanics and abilities, etc. And a player can overcome these more
challenging mobs not by doing exponentially more damage, but by the
abilities they've acquired or resources they've discovered.
What you are describing here sounds very similar to my view of how horizontal progression should work.
You don't get stronger, neither do the mobs. The world is laid out by difficulty, rather than by level.
Player progression is then more about unlocking more options, like new specs or new gear sets with different set bonuses etc. Beating the harder content is then more about playing better as well as choosing the right meta-options for the content.
I personally think this would be a massive benefit for the games and for the players, but you're going to have an uphill battle changing public perception.
Do away with "supermarket" hubs that serve as one-stop-shops for all
the player's needs. Local trainers have their own unique skills to
teach, local traders / crafters their own unique trades and crafts. Players who
learn blacksmithing from the dwarves make distinctly different items
than those who learn it from humans. Or elves. And these differences
have to be significant to present a player with meaningful options and
tradeoffs. Again, consider how this ties to the unique challenges
different zone and enemy types present.
I like this idea, and have had similar in the past.
Don't be too quick to do away with local hubs, they still serve a valuable purpose in terms of bringing players together.
But, an idea I had was that organisations would have their own training regimens and style. As a player, you could join those organisations and then receive specific training from them. For example, you join the city guard in a human city, and they teach you standard sword+board techniques for defending the wall.
Then later, you visit some master thieves, gain their trust. They can then teach you further sword+board skills, more focused on solo dualing, or 1vsmany fights.
Part of what I wanted with this idea was to have the training of skills be more than just "buy skill, add to skill bar". I would like there to be a training arena (or similar), and when you get taught a skill, you actually have to use it properly in the training arena before you've fully learned it. For example, if they give you a taunt skill for tanking, there should be a training exercise where you have to hold aggro for 5 minutes whilst some DPS NPCs beat on your target.
Training exercises with one organisation (like City Guard) would be very different to other organisations. Like, the City Guard would be more focused on teamwork and fighting as a unit, whereas a thieves guild would have training exercises more focused on solo fighting and stuff.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Also, some random thoughts on how current designs can be shifted towards
more meaningful exploration (and these are not at all the only
approaches to take or easy to implement, just fun musings):
- Do away with scaling of
health / damage in proportion to level, for the player and mobs.
Differentiate "low-level" zones from "high-level" zones in the density /
coordination of enemies, in "smarter" enemies that utilize additional
game mechanics and abilities, etc. And a player can overcome these more
challenging mobs not by doing exponentially more damage, but by the
abilities they've acquired or resources they've discovered.
What you are describing here sounds very similar to my view of how horizontal progression should work.
You don't get stronger, neither do the mobs. The world is laid out by difficulty, rather than by level.
Player progression is then more about unlocking more options, like new specs or new gear sets with different set bonuses etc. Beating the harder content is then more about playing better as well as choosing the right meta-options for the content.
I personally think this would be a massive benefit for the games and for the players, but you're going to have an uphill battle changing public perception.
Do away with "supermarket" hubs that serve as one-stop-shops for all
the player's needs. Local trainers have their own unique skills to
teach, local traders / crafters their own unique trades and crafts. Players who
learn blacksmithing from the dwarves make distinctly different items
than those who learn it from humans. Or elves. And these differences
have to be significant to present a player with meaningful options and
tradeoffs. Again, consider how this ties to the unique challenges
different zone and enemy types present.
I like this idea, and have had similar in the past.
Don't be too quick to do away with local hubs, they still serve a valuable purpose in terms of bringing players together.
But, an idea I had was that organisations would have their own training regimens and style. As a player, you could join those organisations and then receive specific training from them. For example, you join the city guard in a human city, and they teach you standard sword+board techniques for defending the wall.
Then later, you visit some master thieves, gain their trust. They can then teach you further sword+board skills, more focused on solo dualing, or 1vsmany fights.
Part of what I wanted with this idea was to have the training of skills be more than just "buy skill, add to skill bar". I would like there to be a training arena (or similar), and when you get taught a skill, you actually have to use it properly in the training arena before you've fully learned it. For example, if they give you a taunt skill for tanking, there should be a training exercise where you have to hold aggro for 5 minutes whilst some DPS NPCs beat on your target.
Training exercises with one organisation (like City Guard) would be very different to other organisations. Like, the City Guard would be more focused on teamwork and fighting as a unit, whereas a thieves guild would have training exercises more focused on solo fighting and stuff.
Again, another post that I really like. Awesome stuff, both of you.
I'd love to take my Mage to powerful Wizards to enhance my Mage's abilities. The "story" of my Characters is something I enjoy a lot. It's part of the progression and I wish MMORPGs paid more attention to this.
I'd hope that garnering such training would sometimes require "proof-of-ability", such as killing and bringing proof to said trainers that your character has the making of a proper student. Especially after newbie-dom, or the earlier stages of Character building.
Edit to add:
"Player progression is then more about unlocking more options, like new specs or new gear sets with different set bonuses etc. Beating the harder content is then more about playing better as well as choosing the right meta-options for the content."
"I personally think this would be a massive benefit for the games and for the players, but you're going to have an uphill battle changing public perception."
I think player testing would open some eyes. A good list, hopefully not complete, I would think make players very anxious. Dreaming about how they want to build their characters, and all that.
- Use a variety of
game features (visuals / sounds) in player progression. As your hunter
gets better at tracking / scouting, provide auditory cues for enemies
further out than what you got before, or use textures with more distinct
visual cues for a hidden path in the woods. Essentially, imagine a low
level player in the forest would have the forest floor rendered with
less distinct vegetation and fewer variety, because they can't really
tell any of it apart. As they level, the game would start to use
previously unused assets that show muddy patches where a path might be,
or different types of plants that indicate something useful or
gatherable, etc. Attach (slight) auditory cues to abilities, then weave
those tones in the environmental sounds and ambience of some ruins to nudge a player towards
using those abilities to uncover something. This can be randomized to
some extent as well, or even connected to a character's level of progression.
- And don't tie all of
this to a single "level" progression. Your character may level up their
time exploring the forests and a walk in the woods would yield the full
breadth of art and sound assets the game has to offer for the woods,
but go through a cave system in the mountains and you may not be able to
tell one boulder from another. Characters can make progress across
different systems independently, based on what they choose to do and
where. And their ability to fight, gather, and craft in different
environments would differ. "Leveling" should be about character
progression in the literary sense -> your character's journey and
development. "Max level" should not be a game objective.
(Snip for space)
This intrigues me. It's "have your head in the game" stuff, and makes a game much more enjoyable. At least, to me.
Sure, it's not for everyone. Especially the math and numbers players (IMO). But some of them might like it better, too. A players would certainly feel like they are more "in the world" in such a game. Ambiance takes on a new meaning.
Also, some random thoughts on how current designs can be shifted towards
more meaningful exploration (and these are not at all the only
approaches to take or easy to implement, just fun musings):
- Do away with scaling of
health / damage in proportion to level, for the player and mobs.
Differentiate "low-level" zones from "high-level" zones in the density /
coordination of enemies, in "smarter" enemies that utilize additional
game mechanics and abilities, etc. And a player can overcome these more
challenging mobs not by doing exponentially more damage, but by the
abilities they've acquired or resources they've discovered.
-
Do away with "supermarket" hubs that serve as one-stop-shops for all
the player's needs. Local trainers have their own unique skills to
teach, local traders / crafters their own unique trades and crafts. Players who
learn blacksmithing from the dwarves make distinctly different items
than those who learn it from humans. Or elves. And these differences
have to be significant to present a player with meaningful options and
tradeoffs. Again, consider how this ties to the unique challenges
different zone and enemy types present.
- Use a variety of
game features (visuals / sounds) in player progression. As your hunter
gets better at tracking / scouting, provide auditory cues for enemies
further out than what you got before, or use textures with more distinct
visual cues for a hidden path in the woods. Essentially, imagine a low
level player in the forest would have the forest floor rendered with
less distinct vegetation and fewer variety, because they can't really
tell any of it apart. As they level, the game would start to use
previously unused assets that show muddy patches where a path might be,
or different types of plants that indicate something useful or
gatherable, etc. Attach (slight) auditory cues to abilities, then weave
those tones in the environmental sounds and ambience of some ruins to nudge a player towards
using those abilities to uncover something. This can be randomized to
some extent as well, or even connected to a character's level of progression.
- And don't tie all of
this to a single "level" progression. Your character may level up their
time exploring the forests and a walk in the woods would yield the full
breadth of art and sound assets the game has to offer for the woods,
but go through a cave system in the mountains and you may not be able to
tell one boulder from another. Characters can make progress across
different systems independently, based on what they choose to do and
where. And their ability to fight, gather, and craft in different
environments would differ. "Leveling" should be about character
progression in the literary sense -> your character's journey and
development. "Max level" should not be a game objective.
-
What's the game objective? So many ways to tackle this. One thing I'd like -> run a Civ-like simulation of several NPC
factions playing turn-based strategy across a world map in the
background. Wars are declared. Peace is made. Cities build and raised.
Resources sought, discovered, and fought over. Players don't see that "game". Their characters get a first-person (or third-person) view of it, by occupying the "game world" that Civ-like map represents.
And your character's objective is what you want it to be against that
backdrop. A war was declared and you choose to support a side. Or supply
both sides with resources. Or flee to safer harbors. And the
consequences of the NPCs' global campaign are new ruins to explore,
mysteries to discover, resources to acquire, and so on. Essentially, the NPCs and their quests (which would be the "themepark" elements) are actually making decisions in the same "sandbox" you are. Go to an NPC town and benefit from some "themepark-ish" direction if you are lost or unsure, but what is happening and what you get roped into will change as the underlying simulation progresses.
Yes,
yes, this is all very complicated and impractical, but we're not
talking about how exactly to get it all done here. These are just some musings of how these game systems can be iterated on to breathe additional life into these worlds.
Ironically , UO did/does some of this 26 years ago .
Comments
I was specifically pushing against puzzle quests, where you solve something complex to progress to next ... Maybe that works in some solo games, but in an MMO I dont see that doing well more than once. People are just not going to participate in large quantities for puzzle quests.
Now with that said, its all in the implementation. So with tweaks who knows how it would play out, but you are climbing a very slippery slope there.
Any design in any game can be poorly done. The whole point is to do them well.
You're beef is about puzzles that make players run all over the place.
I never said puzzle, I specifically said "clue" because I know that puzzles are too much for most gamers who don't have the time to work through them.
Here's an example of the kind of clue I was thinking of, and some re-cap.
I mentioned world landmarks as guiding clues. These would be obvious. They'd be on your maps (one way or another, as a great game design might have a deeper system than typical for maps and mapping. I don't want to explain all of that idea here.
So, and example of the clue might be "Look into the Cave below The Watcher's Eye."
And there a local landmark called "The Watcher", a mountain peak that looks like it has a giant eye on it.
The cave wouldn't be hard to find. Just a little trip along the base of said peak.
I also said that each landmark might have multiple options used for clues.
Instead, the clue might be "Enter the Grove below The Watcher's Eye."
So the players find a grove. Again, this should stick out by its beauty. Not hard to find.
Or maybe the clue reads "Seek ye the Confluence Of the Rivers (south of instead if under) The Watcher's Eye."
(Bold are identity key-words, all part of the large, world wide, automated and random system.) But most would be on local maps, unless it's a special quest for uber goodies.
I hope this gives you some answers.
Once upon a time....
I played pokemon go for 7 years. The game is boring as hell, but I just keep doing it like an addiction.
Most of the people who actually mmorpg are like that to me. At least most of the people willing to play the same games for years or decades is that way.
That is why ARPG is so popular. There isn't exactly that much content, it's just a repetitive task people keep doing it. Arguably MOBA is sort of the same thing.
There is nothing in any of my posts here that distinguishes sandbox and quest leveling. Take that quest driven game, usually Themepark if not always, and add scaling, and you can have open world exploration just the same.
In fact, I've been waiting for someone to mention ESO as an example of "already have it", but it hasn't happened.
Your point about deep combat, and its importance to you relative to sandbox, is a different subject all together.
The fact that you made this comment seems to be directed solely at my desire for Sandbox games.
Which isn't important to this subject, and I've avoided. (See "ESO" above.)
But then, just as you knew me before opening this post, I knew you too.
So we're even.
Once upon a time....
The problem i struggle with and have for years, is that video games rarely ever allow someone to go into a game world completely blind.
Years before a game is even available to play; trailers, news articles, reveiws, previews, game communities- they all basically give away and spoil everything that i find exciting about a video games' world.
But then again, it's rare that a game world is on the level of interesting and alive enough to want to go into it blind- Elden Ring i would say was the most recent experience i had personally that i would love to walk into it with no information.
I think this is why i love Sci-fi games lately; especially ones that allow you to explore space and different planets with the only information being one of observation.
StarField is my last hope for a good exploration video game.
Fishing on Gilgamesh since 2013
Fishing on Bronzebeard since 2005
Fishing in RL since 1992
Born with a fishing rod in my hand in 1979
Personally, I think having a look at the game world can be a good thing, because that simulates that the world existed before you were there. It serves as some world knowledge being available as one might expect in a living "world."
The kind of things I'd like to see are limited discoveries through testing.
Then, after testing, and before release, add in that kind of content on a wide scale.
- MOBs can be rearranged and formed into "cults" per the Lore, and with meaning to be discovered.
- Clues to mysteries waiting to be discovered can be added. Tomes, wall murals, alters, statues, wall maps, runic symbols, etc., that have meanings waiting for discovery.
- The landscape can be dotted with additional things to find. Small ruins, caves and small dungeons, cemeteries, crumbled statues, ancient fountains of mysterious function, etc.
- Mechanical things already tested as a system (levers, etc.) can be added along with what they control.
And then, over time after release, more still can be secretly added.
So, I think there's a way to make exploration a key selling point of a game.
Once upon a time....
You said: "I also think there are many, many more ways to play a game than simply being an explorer (or not, don't even know what the opposite would be. Tourist?)"
I would say the hand-holders are the opposite to Explorer.
But a bigger point is all the other ways to play. You're right, I think.
Especially in the economic game play. Back in the days before Themepark took over, there were a good number of gamers who really enjoyed that game. Buying, selling, I even knew of gamers who made unofficial supply "contracts" with other players to boost their economic game.
It was much more a realistic simulation in the early years than it's become now.
Then there were those who loved "treasure hunting" if that was in the game.
Fishing was rewarding to some if there were rewards for that. Often gamers who were RL fishermen. Hell, UO had a multi-shard Guild called the "Fishing Council of Britannia" before there was any rewards added.
There used to be posts on forums from people who wanted to breed "pets." I don't think they wanted the simple versions that we've seen in the following years.
Players put on all kinds of player events too. Fairs, murder mysteries, chess competitions, story telling events, plays, and whatever else.
There's a lot that's been left off the table as this Themepark, based on Level Grind, has taken over. Not because they couldn't do some of this stuff, but because they needed to spend their time to create their load of fixed content that always runs short anyways.
I think they were right about what players wanted when they started it, but it always seemed obvious that it would run out of steam at some point.
Once upon a time....
For a while, EA had the slogan "We Create Worlds." They dropped that as the Themepark design took center stage.
That's what gamers wanted, a "great game." At the time, though, and based on their previous experiences with D&D and all of the SP games based off of it.
The fixed content and defined paths with goals defined as victory, the exact same as every other player (with some deviation per Class), lacks something. A unique experience. Choice. Personal goals.
And that's where the players "bring the other part." A lot of the "win" in this perspective is the experience. Doing something that is unusual or different can have its own rewards.
Making your way in a World, sometimes your own way, has its rewards.
Being the first to come up with something brings some fame and thus its own reward.
But even so, even "Sandbox Worlds" also "need game." That's not a problem, as it's basically the same thing as Themeparks, just without the Themepark.
Since you can't do it all in one play session, what's the difference anyways?
Instead of following the defined path through each Dungeon and place of interest, you just go to each Dungeon and place of interest.
But you get so much more, through exploration and all of the choices you can pick from. Those personal goals.
That's not "empty and incomplete." It's just perceived that way because that's what people say. People who want "gamey", and defined paths, and lists of what quests they did, and question marks over heads to show them where the next step is.
(There's nothing wrong with that, except to those who want more.)
Once upon a time....
What I don't want to see is more "quests" that everyone does in a fixed pattern.
Quests are fine for a nudge into something to do, but they are meaningless otherwise. Especially with levels as they are.
I have more to say on this but there's so much to relate. I'm thinking it over as to the presentation.
Once upon a time....
Public quests such as GW2 or warhammer online is fine. Because it don't involve reading.
That's my take of things.
There are alot of ideas to unpack in this one post, so I will just focus on the level progression and mob health/complexity issues for now.
I think this idea of limiting level progression is interesting in theory, but not sure in practice it would work. I think many people need to be progressing in some type of skill to feel they are getting stronger within the game world.
I am not a big fan of on the rails themeparks, but at the same time, its hard to imagine a
game world where at least some skills are not progressing/improving over time.
Having all mobs with completely static health could be a problem.
I do like the idea of mobs getting more complex in different areas, where the deeper/further you go, the harder/complex it gets, that way people with different skill levels (outside the game) can explore until the content becomes too challenging for the group, then they move horizontally within that area where they feel comfortable at the max challenge for their particular group.
Are not some games doing this already thou, with Mythic dungeons etc..? Maybe the health is not static, but I dont see that as a signficant difference.
You have some great concepts in this post. Well worth "exploring" for better, more exciting games.
Once upon a time....
I'd love to take my Mage to powerful Wizards to enhance my Mage's abilities.
The "story" of my Characters is something I enjoy a lot. It's part of the progression and I wish MMORPGs paid more attention to this.
I'd hope that garnering such training would sometimes require "proof-of-ability", such as killing and bringing proof to said trainers that your character has the making of a proper student. Especially after newbie-dom, or the earlier stages of Character building.
Edit to add:
"Player progression is then more about unlocking more options, like new specs or new gear sets with different set bonuses etc. Beating the harder content is then more about playing better as well as choosing the right meta-options for the content."
I think player testing would open some eyes.
A good list, hopefully not complete, I would think make players very anxious. Dreaming about how they want to build their characters, and all that.
Once upon a time....
It's "have your head in the game" stuff, and makes a game much more enjoyable. At least, to me.
Sure, it's not for everyone. Especially the math and numbers players (IMO). But some of them might like it better, too.
A players would certainly feel like they are more "in the world" in such a game. Ambiance takes on a new meaning.
Once upon a time....