Having gotten over the initial disappointment surrounding the story in WoW's Theramore scenario, I've played through the thing several more times (7 total, judging from my stack of fireworks). Through this experience, I have found that the scenario is more fun the less optimal your group is. Looking ahead to Pandaria's endgame, though, this makes me wonder if Blizzard has only further delayed the point at which players will be forced to learn how to play in a "real" group.
The Trinity and Soloing
The central tenet of the "holy trinity" approach to MMO's is that DPS should not be taking damage. Even if you personally are capable of pulling one of the mobs and soloing it, this is strongly discouraged as your healer will feel obliged to heal you (whether or not you need the help - if you are wrong and you die, your mob gets loose) and all of the mobs will survive longer because your group's DPS is split.
When Blizzard added solo play as an intentionally supported form of gameplay to the MMO genre, at WoW's launch in 2004, they had to change this model. When you are alone, there is no one else to take the damage for you. Thus, every character needed their own mechanism for avoiding, healing, or mitigating the attacks of their enemies. However, the game (and most others that have offered solo leveling since) transitions to the traditional model at max level, and players nigh universally note that the leveling experience does little to prepare new players for this shift.
Cooperative Soloing
A scenario group with a tank functions largely like a traditional trinity group. A scenario group without a tank functions like a trio of solo players cooperating. On paper at least there's no problem with individual players intentionally pulling aggro and using all of their tool to survive and conquer. (The one issue arises if a player sees my mage fighting stuff, assumes that I can't survive, and adds my mobs onto the ones they had already pulled for themselves, taking on more than they can tank.) Indeed, designing scenarios with large pulls of soloable mobs rather than single mobs that lone players can't survive seems to have been the whole point of the design.
This puts scenarios in an unusual niche in the overall context of Pandaria's endgame. It sounds like the intent is to offer a gradual transition into group content, with a finite endpoint as you get the requisite gear. The catch is that, while players are probably introduced to more group concepts than they would be solo, they are by design free to continue disregarding the holy trinity concept. This is a good thing if the solo playstyle is what you find fun, and you are now free to continue that fun for one more tier up the progression. This is a bad thing if the longterm goal - for yourself, the playerbase as a whole, or Blizzard - is to break players of bad aggro habits before they get to "real" group content.
Early Impressions of Borderlands 2
If you'd told me that I was going to be active on launch day for one game that has a more action oriented combat style, marked differences in how you play based on the weapon you have equipped, and a name that ends in the number 2, I would have guessed Guild Wars. Instead, thanks to a promo that snagged me a free copy with the new graphics card I finally ordered last month, I ended up in Borderlands 2.
BL2 is a first person shooter with RPG-style quests and stat progression. The gameplay reminds me a lot of the combat in the Uncharted series. You will die quickly if you stand out in the open against multiple mobs. Instead, the focus is on taking cover and preferably sniping from range, where your aim is probably better than the mobs and you have the luxury of ducking out of sight while your shields regenerate. The big difference is that you gain levels, earn skill points, and loot guns and other gear that offers improved, customized stats that allow you to outlevel your foes, much like you would in a more traditional RPG format.
The game is set in a post-apocalyptic world that features a harsh sense of brutal slapstick humor and lots of guns. My character already owns four major classes of firearms as of level 8 - pistols, assault rifles, sniper rifles, and the shotgun - along with grenades and two more weapon classes (submachine guns and rocket launchers) I have yet to obtain. You will literally find NPC's with punctuation over their heads offering quests and rewards just like an MMO, and those quests will take the same basic form as an MMO offers - kill, loot, interact.
BL2 offers four character classes, who use the same gear but have some different special abilities. I'm playing a Commando, which seems like a solid beginner class due to a robotic turret that adds to my DPS, picks off flying mobs that are hard to aim at, and off-tanks by pulling enemies for me. The other three classes include a "Gunzerker" who can dual wield rifles, a robot stealth assassin with a focus on melee combat, and a Siren psychic character who seems to focus more on crowd control and support. (The latter is NOT the subject of the notorious "girlfriend mode" comment made by a developer a few months ago - that is a new mech pet class slated for DLC - but it may be worth noting that the one existing female character seems the most focused on support.)
In terms of incentives, people make a lot of the loot, because there are so many varieties of weapon, but this part doesn't really stand out to me. There are tons of random properties, but many of them are useless. For example, I found a shotgun that takes 3 rounds per shot and had a clip bonus allowing it to carry a total of 11 rounds - i.e. still one shy of being able to shoot four times between reloading, so it could have just as well been a -1 clip penalty for all the benefit it added. Perhaps if I play through more than once I will try a different playstyle, but on my first character it seems that really 2-3 stats matter the most, and I will only consider gear that upgrades those stats.
One thing BL2 does do that's a bit more novel is tying the in-game achievement-equivalent system to passive stat increases. DCUO does something similar, but in this case supposedly the bonuses (while generally small) will apply to future characters on your profile. It is a neat little incentive to try something other than taking all foes out with max range sniper shots to the head. One other unique mechanic is the "fight for your life" status - upon running out of health, the player has a few seconds in a severely weakened and limited state to attempt to kill something, which will inspire you to get up and continue fighting. This probably won't help if you got gunned down at range by half a dozen guys, but at close range you have a decent chance of unloading your clip into the enemy's face and hoping to finish them off before you die and respawn. (The death penalty seems mild, something like 10% of your cash on hand.)
Overall, I'm not seeing where the replay value is going to be in this game. I had a really rough time for the first few quests, as the story very quickly dumps you into level 5 content at around level 3-4, but once I survived a few side quests and obtained more optimal weapons things started to fall into place very quickly. By the time I finished the newbie area, I was level 8 and frequently one-shotting the level 5 content. I could see challenging yourself by trying to finish just the story quests with as few side missions as possible in order to limit your access to loot and exp, but that approach comes at the expense of missing most of the content. That said, the ability to out-level content for an easier path is probably a big part of why I'm enjoying a genre that is usually not my favorite. If I do end up sniping mobs one by one through the entire storyline, BL2 will be more of a success than many games I've played.
Business model aside: There are announced plans for four DLC packs (one of which was free to paid pre-orders - not sure if I will get this with my free copy, but that's a small price if I decide I want it compared to a free game), with an already announced bundle to buy all four for $30 (versus $10 each). I guess it's an odd quirk of the business that you want to get your DLC out there early and paid up front; your theoretical market for DLC increases as more total copies are sold, but it's harder to capitalize as more players finish or quit the game and aren't as interested in more DLC. Sadly, this is what Bioware was getting at with their comments on how those of us who don't like day-one DLC are out of luck.
BL2 offers four character classes, who use the same gear but have some different special abilities. I'm playing a Commando, which seems like a solid beginner class due to a robotic turret that adds to my DPS, picks off flying mobs that are hard to aim at, and off-tanks by pulling enemies for me. The other three classes include a "Gunzerker" who can dual wield rifles, a robot stealth assassin with a focus on melee combat, and a Siren psychic character who seems to focus more on crowd control and support. (The latter is NOT the subject of the notorious "girlfriend mode" comment made by a developer a few months ago - that is a new mech pet class slated for DLC - but it may be worth noting that the one existing female character seems the most focused on support.)
In terms of incentives, people make a lot of the loot, because there are so many varieties of weapon, but this part doesn't really stand out to me. There are tons of random properties, but many of them are useless. For example, I found a shotgun that takes 3 rounds per shot and had a clip bonus allowing it to carry a total of 11 rounds - i.e. still one shy of being able to shoot four times between reloading, so it could have just as well been a -1 clip penalty for all the benefit it added. Perhaps if I play through more than once I will try a different playstyle, but on my first character it seems that really 2-3 stats matter the most, and I will only consider gear that upgrades those stats.
Overall, I'm not seeing where the replay value is going to be in this game. I had a really rough time for the first few quests, as the story very quickly dumps you into level 5 content at around level 3-4, but once I survived a few side quests and obtained more optimal weapons things started to fall into place very quickly. By the time I finished the newbie area, I was level 8 and frequently one-shotting the level 5 content. I could see challenging yourself by trying to finish just the story quests with as few side missions as possible in order to limit your access to loot and exp, but that approach comes at the expense of missing most of the content. That said, the ability to out-level content for an easier path is probably a big part of why I'm enjoying a genre that is usually not my favorite. If I do end up sniping mobs one by one through the entire storyline, BL2 will be more of a success than many games I've played.
Business model aside: There are announced plans for four DLC packs (one of which was free to paid pre-orders - not sure if I will get this with my free copy, but that's a small price if I decide I want it compared to a free game), with an already announced bundle to buy all four for $30 (versus $10 each). I guess it's an odd quirk of the business that you want to get your DLC out there early and paid up front; your theoretical market for DLC increases as more total copies are sold, but it's harder to capitalize as more players finish or quit the game and aren't as interested in more DLC. Sadly, this is what Bioware was getting at with their comments on how those of us who don't like day-one DLC are out of luck.
Watching NPC Story in Theramore
WoW's expansion launch non-event is live, which means that level 85 players are now free to preview the level 90 Fall of Theramore scenario five levels early for one week only. I suppose my expectations should have been low given that Blizzard has been going out of their way to note that they did not want to spend lots of development time on an event that would be here for one week and then gone forever. Even so, I have been disappointed, and the biggest factor has been the story.
As Rohan notes, we're effectively reduced to watching a small window into a tale that only makes sense if you have read the associated novel. Assuming that you aren't afraid of spoilers, WoWhead's summary details what appears to be the entire contents of the book. It is only with this additional context that the story even begins to make sense - both the motivations of the characters to upend a truce that has been in place since Warcraft III and the details, such as how the Focusing Iris (widely seen by players in the puggable raid finder version of Dragon Soul) ends up involved.
This is a bit disappointing coming from a company that originally made the decision never to spam players with more than 250ish characters of quest text when they could instead be showing players the story in-game. Part of the mystique of the old Alliance Onyxia attunement questline was how the players actually were the heroes who unveiled the black dragon's treachery. Reading the synopsis of the novel, there are numerous places that could have been opportunities for players to participate in a major lore event that does not seem to have needed to happen prior to the expansion launch. Instead, all of these things are reserved for another medium, and players in the actual game are just left to view the aftermath.
Don't get me wrong, I don't always expect my characters to be the most powerful/important characters in the lore of the game. LOTRO somehow manages to make the player characters seem significant even though some NPC noobs named Aragorn, Gandalf, and Legolas (stereotypical Elf Hunter), et al keep stealing all of the best kills. Blizzard just doesn't handle the presence of external story material as well, hasn't done so for a number of years now, but they seem happy with how they're doing it.
(Ironically and cleverly, author Christie Golden has written your Alliance characters - yes, yours personally - into an un-named cameo appearance. Apparently someone failed to tell her that the scenario was 3-player instead of the customary 5, but the idea of having Jaina acknowledge the presence of un-named Alliance allies in the book is a relatively clever tie-in.)
Other general comments:
As Rohan notes, we're effectively reduced to watching a small window into a tale that only makes sense if you have read the associated novel. Assuming that you aren't afraid of spoilers, WoWhead's summary details what appears to be the entire contents of the book. It is only with this additional context that the story even begins to make sense - both the motivations of the characters to upend a truce that has been in place since Warcraft III and the details, such as how the Focusing Iris (widely seen by players in the puggable raid finder version of Dragon Soul) ends up involved.
This is a bit disappointing coming from a company that originally made the decision never to spam players with more than 250ish characters of quest text when they could instead be showing players the story in-game. Part of the mystique of the old Alliance Onyxia attunement questline was how the players actually were the heroes who unveiled the black dragon's treachery. Reading the synopsis of the novel, there are numerous places that could have been opportunities for players to participate in a major lore event that does not seem to have needed to happen prior to the expansion launch. Instead, all of these things are reserved for another medium, and players in the actual game are just left to view the aftermath.
Don't get me wrong, I don't always expect my characters to be the most powerful/important characters in the lore of the game. LOTRO somehow manages to make the player characters seem significant even though some NPC noobs named Aragorn, Gandalf, and Legolas (stereotypical Elf Hunter), et al keep stealing all of the best kills. Blizzard just doesn't handle the presence of external story material as well, hasn't done so for a number of years now, but they seem happy with how they're doing it.
(Ironically and cleverly, author Christie Golden has written your Alliance characters - yes, yours personally - into an un-named cameo appearance. Apparently someone failed to tell her that the scenario was 3-player instead of the customary 5, but the idea of having Jaina acknowledge the presence of un-named Alliance allies in the book is a relatively clever tie-in.)
Other general comments:
- Scenario gameplay is a reasonable group-like experience that can be completed by three DPS players, though you can expect to spend more effort on staying alive through use of cooldowns and other class tricks that often get shelved with a real tank and healer. There is also a focus on pulling multiple soloable mobs, such that each player can take their own share if no one player can tank all the mobs at once. As a solo player, I think they nailed the gameplay, in that it's much more like what I actually experience when playing the game.
- I assume there is a limit to how many instances can be up at a time, as the system displays wait times of up to an hour (though I usually wait a fraction of that).
- The loot seems nice enough, though it's unclear what if anything determines what items you will get, how many times you can expect to run the event if you're after specific items, etc. On the downside, it may not be worth paying for gold to gem and enchant gear the week the expansion comes out, but at least you can keep the stuff banked for future transmog/appearance use.
- I didn't get to try the event on my Horde warrior, as he does not possess the required gearscore and I simply don't care enough to farm for this problem. Judging from WoWhead's video, the scenario appears to be as close to mirrored as it could be given that the Horde has to win in preparing to destroy the city and the Alliance has to win in cleaning up the aftermath.
Accountability In the Post-Subscription Era
I've heard several generally insightful podcasters commenting on the relatively ban-happy policies of Guild Wars 2. I'm disappointed that many people do not state the obvious - due to the lack of subscription fees, ArenaNet loses no recurring revenue when it bans a customer.
We don't have the data to tell whether bannings in Guild Wars 2 is actually more prevalent in other games since none of the studios routinely publicize such numbers, but one can certainly imagine that removing the subscription fee removes a financial incentive NOT to ban a customer. Sure, a banned player might eventually have opted to pay for microtransactions or expansions, but it's nowhere near the guaranteed revenue of someone who is happy to pay $15/monthly for the opportunity to troll. Moreover, their conduct also affects the tone of the community in a way that might influence whether others stay and pay.
Looking beyond this issue, we are in a somewhat unprecedented scenario in which two separate major titles - Diablo III and GW 2 - launched within a six month period never intending to collect a subscription fee. Both sold seven digit numbers of copies at $60 a head. We have some free to play games that have over a million users - few of whom are likely to have paid $60. We have a small number of subscription MMO's that actually have a million former subscribers. Neither category of game intentionally chose that outcome.
Even if most players will never pay for additional transactions, both titles are franchises with at least some incentive not to ruin their respective brand names. See, for example, Blizzard's scramble to add an alternate advancement system upon determining that the base game lacked staying power, when in principle they could have shrugged, secure in the knowledge that people who run out of stuff to do have already paid. It will be interesting to see if anything more substantial than policies about banning people for abusing their group-mates in chat changes as this type of model becomes more common in online gaming.
We don't have the data to tell whether bannings in Guild Wars 2 is actually more prevalent in other games since none of the studios routinely publicize such numbers, but one can certainly imagine that removing the subscription fee removes a financial incentive NOT to ban a customer. Sure, a banned player might eventually have opted to pay for microtransactions or expansions, but it's nowhere near the guaranteed revenue of someone who is happy to pay $15/monthly for the opportunity to troll. Moreover, their conduct also affects the tone of the community in a way that might influence whether others stay and pay.
Looking beyond this issue, we are in a somewhat unprecedented scenario in which two separate major titles - Diablo III and GW 2 - launched within a six month period never intending to collect a subscription fee. Both sold seven digit numbers of copies at $60 a head. We have some free to play games that have over a million users - few of whom are likely to have paid $60. We have a small number of subscription MMO's that actually have a million former subscribers. Neither category of game intentionally chose that outcome.
Even if most players will never pay for additional transactions, both titles are franchises with at least some incentive not to ruin their respective brand names. See, for example, Blizzard's scramble to add an alternate advancement system upon determining that the base game lacked staying power, when in principle they could have shrugged, secure in the knowledge that people who run out of stuff to do have already paid. It will be interesting to see if anything more substantial than policies about banning people for abusing their group-mates in chat changes as this type of model becomes more common in online gaming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)