Kakwakas
01-23-2006, 07:32 PM
Source (http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?FN=wow-general&T=6768908&P=1)
I'll happily discuss interactivity and lore with you, from the standpoint of someone that's created world events for other MMOs in the past. I've dwelled on the subject for years, and know well the arguments surrounding it. Be aware that I'm probably going to ramble, but I assure you, there's a point in here somewhere. ;)
Single player games set the standard: you are the Hero, and the world revolves around you. Fans of single-player RPGs get enthralled in this feeling -- I matter. The world responds to my every action. NPCs remember my dealings. The story progresses. Some of these games have a defined ending: the story comes to a close, the credits roll, and the experience is left to replays. Some of the more open-ended games allow you to continue playing after the main story is done, but you're left directionless; the story is no longer advancing. You can forge your own stories in this way (and believe me, I have) but the world no longer responds the way it used to, and the magic is often lost thereby.
The world of Azeroth has its story established in past games that, while they sported multiplayer, only developed lore in the single player game. You dance from Hero to Hero, exploring their story and their part in the grand tapestry that is the history of the world. The story progresses, and you see the world change from a variety of viewpoints. This is the typical Warcraft lore progression. We were behind the eyes of Lothar, of Grom, of Arthas, of Malfurion, of Illidan, of Sylvanas, of Thrall, of Jaina... we were the Heroes, and our actions changed the course of the future.
And then we come to World of Warcraft, a game that brings the lore of its predecessors with it but has the added burden of being an entirely different style of game. You're behind the Hero again, but... well... there are thousands of other Heroes out there with you. How can you allow players to feel that impact?
Diverging content is normally what is suggested in this case, but normally without due consideration. It's an extremely tricky thing to implement, technically and feasibly. To define it before I delve further, the term "diverging content" refers to storyline or other gameplay content differing from realm to realm.
It sounds great on paper -- what if the players could make a difference through their actions? What if the storyline started the same on all realms but was diverged further and further from realm to realm as time went on due to decisions made by the playerbase? Wouldn't that be phenomenal? Wouldn't that be epic?
Well, yes, it certainly sounds that way. But then the technicalities come in. Say world leaders could be permanently slain. With the way MMO players work, they are the equivalent of raid bosses; no matter how hard we make them, odds are their existence will be seen as a challenge, and they'll die. And then what? Do we install a new nameless Warchief? Do we name a player King, except without the responsibilities (since the griefing potential is huge)? When everyone is dead, how does this truly advance the world?
Moreover, the killing of significant NPCs in a permanent way can often result in content being cut off. While you may think this is a fine thing, or something that can easily be shifted to a different NPC, this is a QA nightmare. It's one thing to QA one version of content; it's quite another to play through every single possible combination of events.
But let's say it's not about killing world leaders. Let's leave that alone for a moment and argue basic theory: repeatable content vs. non-repeatable content. Repeatable content is what much of WoW is: quests (while not repeatable by the same character, they can be done by others), dungeons, Battlegrounds, and recurring World Events are all examples of repeatable content. This gives the player the most bang for their buck, and is the best use of development time. Non-repeatable content, such as some of the Ahn'Qiraj event, is fantastic once in a while -- but devoting massive amounts of development time to an event that will only occur once is poor planning. Having non-repeatable content cut others off from previously repeatable content is a worse idea.
Now, non-repeatable content is neat. It's that sort of thing that advances the storyline. However, in MMOs, where everyone's vying to be the Hero at once, it's difficult to implement without destroying at least some of what you've built, if you're trying to do it on a large scale. Addition-based non-repeatable content such as the Opening of the Gates in Silithus is probably the type of thing you're going to see more of -- sparingly. It's fantastic in feel. It gives the idea of changing the world through your actions... and that's why the AQ War Effort had so many facets. Maybe you can't raid with your character, but you can still contribute in a variety of ways and be rewarded for it. It targeted as broad a scope as we dared, and we feel it was largely successful in hitting the mark.
But back to the point -- advancing a storyline in an MMO is difficult, particularly if the lore wasn't built for an MMO in the beginning. In our case, there may well be a Warcraft 4. If so, where would we possibly pick up the story if each of our 130+ realms had a different world tale to tell? Is one realm's reality more valid than another?
We had a decision to make in this regard when we first brainstormed World of Warcraft. The question is this: how do you define the Hero in a game when there are thousands of people all dying to be one? The answer, in our case, is to allow others to forge their own stories using our basis, with occasional non-repeatable world events that hope to include as many people as possible. While world-changing events are awesome, being excluded from them -- or missing them -- is no fun (as can be evidenced by the number of people 1) who logged in to watch Medivh's opening despite not being from the realm, and 2) who are criticizing the event's length), and in general it's a less efficient use of development time.
I thought it was worth posting. >->
I'm glad that Blizz's stance on the matter is so. I feel assured that I won't be seeing "Arthas was killed by a group of adventurers" in a Warcraft IV manual. <3
I'll happily discuss interactivity and lore with you, from the standpoint of someone that's created world events for other MMOs in the past. I've dwelled on the subject for years, and know well the arguments surrounding it. Be aware that I'm probably going to ramble, but I assure you, there's a point in here somewhere. ;)
Single player games set the standard: you are the Hero, and the world revolves around you. Fans of single-player RPGs get enthralled in this feeling -- I matter. The world responds to my every action. NPCs remember my dealings. The story progresses. Some of these games have a defined ending: the story comes to a close, the credits roll, and the experience is left to replays. Some of the more open-ended games allow you to continue playing after the main story is done, but you're left directionless; the story is no longer advancing. You can forge your own stories in this way (and believe me, I have) but the world no longer responds the way it used to, and the magic is often lost thereby.
The world of Azeroth has its story established in past games that, while they sported multiplayer, only developed lore in the single player game. You dance from Hero to Hero, exploring their story and their part in the grand tapestry that is the history of the world. The story progresses, and you see the world change from a variety of viewpoints. This is the typical Warcraft lore progression. We were behind the eyes of Lothar, of Grom, of Arthas, of Malfurion, of Illidan, of Sylvanas, of Thrall, of Jaina... we were the Heroes, and our actions changed the course of the future.
And then we come to World of Warcraft, a game that brings the lore of its predecessors with it but has the added burden of being an entirely different style of game. You're behind the Hero again, but... well... there are thousands of other Heroes out there with you. How can you allow players to feel that impact?
Diverging content is normally what is suggested in this case, but normally without due consideration. It's an extremely tricky thing to implement, technically and feasibly. To define it before I delve further, the term "diverging content" refers to storyline or other gameplay content differing from realm to realm.
It sounds great on paper -- what if the players could make a difference through their actions? What if the storyline started the same on all realms but was diverged further and further from realm to realm as time went on due to decisions made by the playerbase? Wouldn't that be phenomenal? Wouldn't that be epic?
Well, yes, it certainly sounds that way. But then the technicalities come in. Say world leaders could be permanently slain. With the way MMO players work, they are the equivalent of raid bosses; no matter how hard we make them, odds are their existence will be seen as a challenge, and they'll die. And then what? Do we install a new nameless Warchief? Do we name a player King, except without the responsibilities (since the griefing potential is huge)? When everyone is dead, how does this truly advance the world?
Moreover, the killing of significant NPCs in a permanent way can often result in content being cut off. While you may think this is a fine thing, or something that can easily be shifted to a different NPC, this is a QA nightmare. It's one thing to QA one version of content; it's quite another to play through every single possible combination of events.
But let's say it's not about killing world leaders. Let's leave that alone for a moment and argue basic theory: repeatable content vs. non-repeatable content. Repeatable content is what much of WoW is: quests (while not repeatable by the same character, they can be done by others), dungeons, Battlegrounds, and recurring World Events are all examples of repeatable content. This gives the player the most bang for their buck, and is the best use of development time. Non-repeatable content, such as some of the Ahn'Qiraj event, is fantastic once in a while -- but devoting massive amounts of development time to an event that will only occur once is poor planning. Having non-repeatable content cut others off from previously repeatable content is a worse idea.
Now, non-repeatable content is neat. It's that sort of thing that advances the storyline. However, in MMOs, where everyone's vying to be the Hero at once, it's difficult to implement without destroying at least some of what you've built, if you're trying to do it on a large scale. Addition-based non-repeatable content such as the Opening of the Gates in Silithus is probably the type of thing you're going to see more of -- sparingly. It's fantastic in feel. It gives the idea of changing the world through your actions... and that's why the AQ War Effort had so many facets. Maybe you can't raid with your character, but you can still contribute in a variety of ways and be rewarded for it. It targeted as broad a scope as we dared, and we feel it was largely successful in hitting the mark.
But back to the point -- advancing a storyline in an MMO is difficult, particularly if the lore wasn't built for an MMO in the beginning. In our case, there may well be a Warcraft 4. If so, where would we possibly pick up the story if each of our 130+ realms had a different world tale to tell? Is one realm's reality more valid than another?
We had a decision to make in this regard when we first brainstormed World of Warcraft. The question is this: how do you define the Hero in a game when there are thousands of people all dying to be one? The answer, in our case, is to allow others to forge their own stories using our basis, with occasional non-repeatable world events that hope to include as many people as possible. While world-changing events are awesome, being excluded from them -- or missing them -- is no fun (as can be evidenced by the number of people 1) who logged in to watch Medivh's opening despite not being from the realm, and 2) who are criticizing the event's length), and in general it's a less efficient use of development time.
I thought it was worth posting. >->
I'm glad that Blizz's stance on the matter is so. I feel assured that I won't be seeing "Arthas was killed by a group of adventurers" in a Warcraft IV manual. <3