I've recently been playing on some emulators for various older games (multiple games, not just EQ), and while I've found the nostalgia to be a blast, I have also noticed a fairly disturbing trend among all of them: The content seems far easier and faster than it once did.
This is in spite of these emulators touting that they have the original pacing, challenge, and so on. It's also in spite of me not having even looked at some of these games in more than a decade. If it were just one of them or just some of the content, I'd just chalk it up to me remembering stuff, and leave it at that. But it's not just one of them or some of the content - it's all of them, and all of the content. So what gives? I've been thinking about this a lot the last week, because it's honestly resulted in a dissatisfying experience for me, and I thought I would share the conclusions I've come up with so far:
1) Knowledge makes too big of a difference
In many of these older games, the "challenge" of content wasn't in actually beating that content. It was in figuring out how. Where did you need to go, what did you need to do when you got there, which mob dropped the item you needed, and so on. A lot of the sense of exploration and danger we had came from that proces of figuring out what to do. I have a fairly good memory, apparently - because now, years and years later, I am finding that I still intrinsically remember some of that stuff. Or maybe it's just far more obvious to me now. Either way, it's making a lot of things feel far easier than I remembered. I am willing to bet that if I were to introduce a player who had never seen that content before, ever, that they would think it very challenging as they went through it.
2) Much of the content we have fond memories of was very simplistic
As I was doing a quest line yesterday that I really enjoyed back in its original game, it hit me just how simplistic the quest actually was. Go talk to this NPC. Go kill that mob and get a drop. Rinse. Repeat. That was literally all there was to it. The same thing happened with dungeons. Go to a room, find the named mobs, kill them for loot. These two formulas gave us years of enjoyment back when MMOs were new but now that I'm a "veteran" gamer - they're not enough. I tested this out by playing through a few completely new quests that the developers of one of the emulators had implemented. Those felt easy and simplistic as well.
3) The true magic of these games was in the player interactions - not the content
As I've been playing on these emulators, I have had plenty of positive experiences. Those experiences didn't revolve around boss fights and quests, but around the players. Whether it was the time I spent 30 minutes explaining to several eager guildmates how crafting worked, or the night where my group made no progress on the quest we were trying to do because we were all too busy talking and kept missing the named mob spawn, or even the time that I broke off what I was doing and pulled a group together to rescue some people that had just wiped deep in a dungeon - those things are what I found myself enjoying and remembering afterwards. Not the actual fights and quests.
Recommendations for Pantheon
So, with those three conclusions, I have some recommendations I want to make for Pantheon.
First - when designing content of any kind, avoid simplistic systems that can be learned rote by players. The drop should not always come from the same mob. The ground spawn should not always be in the same place. The boss should not always be in the same room, in the same dungeon or camp, or even the be same boss. The item needed shouldn't always be the same item. The path to find out what you need should not always be a straight line from one NPC to the next. Back in those older games, it was probably a big achievement technically to do as much as they did. Technology has advanced. Pantheon has a big opportunity here to give us content that isn't simplistic, and where knowledge alone won't trivialize it on future playthroughs.
Second - while every player should have plenty of goals and objectives for their race and class choice, it's critically important that those objectives overlap with others. The rogue's daggers should somehow be in the same place as the summoner's robe, and the cleric's spell upgrade quest should take them through content that rangers need to do for other reasons as well. Many more modern games have ended up separating objectives in an effort to provide stronger narratives to players, but the reality is that having those objectives shared creates a strong narrative in a different way. So, when designing objectives into the game, it's important to make sure that the vast majority of them overlap. As a corollary to that however, it's important that they don't all end up in the same places either.
Third - content and objectives should be built with interdependency in mind. A lot of games, even the older ones, pay lip service to interdependency, but then they set their content up to not really require more than the very basics. Pantheon should not go that route. A lot of this comes down to the idea of the "quaternity". There should be places where you really need CC of some type. Or where you really need a scout to sneak in and hit the lever, or a tracker to find the hidden location of the monster's lair. There should be fights where you really need debuffs, or resists, or interrupts in order to get through the fight. I'm not saying that places need to be designed with constraints like "must have a rogue in party", but the content itself should expect players to leverage a full range of abilities in order to make it through easily.
I guess the main point that I'm trying to make here is that Pantheon needs to go further than its predecessors when it comes to content. It can't simply do the same things in the same way as they did, no matter how fondly our nostalgia makes us remember those games. The reason is simply that we as gamers have learned those patterns. We know those tricks. Anything created along the same lines will simply not be as compelling, no matter how artfully crafted. For that reason, Pantheon needs to show us something new. Do things we're not expecting. Throw US off our game and force us to learn -- and ideally, do it in ways where that second, or third, or fourth playthrough doesn't really give us as much of an advantage.
It is my fervent hope that Pantheon, like Vanguard before it, will feature a big enough world and enough content that players will be able to do different things on alts/progeny than they did their first time through. However, I also think that all of that content really needs to be designed with replayability in mind. Doing this will help make for a game experience for it's players that's just as engaging and thrilling five years in as it was during their first few months of play.
Like a laser Nephele.
For anyone that actually did play Vanguard and did enjoy the extensive world and some vast dungeons, this, I expect, is our hope.
I'm vastly concerned more by that vision vs. the size of the team, which mathmatically works out to years of content building.
Brad is on record, and he's right, that the solution to most of the problems people ***** about such as camps and griefing can be largely solved with content and not over-populating.
Nephele said:First - when designing content of any kind, avoid simplistic systems that can be learned rote by players. The drop should not always come from the same mob. The ground spawn should not always be in the same place. The boss should not always be in the same room, in the same dungeon or camp, or even the be same boss. The item needed shouldn't always be the same item. The path to find out what you need should not always be a straight line from one NPC to the next. Back in those older games, it was probably a big achievement technically to do as much as they did. Technology has advanced. Pantheon has a big opportunity here to give us content that isn't simplistic, and where knowledge alone won't trivialize it on future playthroughs.
While I agree with you pretty much on all of this, I will disagree with the idea that the boss should not always be in the same room, dungeon or camp..or even the same boss. To create different verions (potentially thousands of different versions) of a boss just feels too much like it is procedurally generated, that an algorrithm is creating content and not developers. Slap in some variables, a few RNG values and call it done? No. Hand crafted content is what draws people in. I want to go to this specific dungeon and kill that specific boss. That is the draw.
Nephele said:Second - while every player should have plenty of goals and objectives for their race and class choice, it's critically important that those objectives overlap with others. The rogue's daggers should somehow be in the same place as the summoner's robe, and the cleric's spell upgrade quest should take them through content that rangers need to do for other reasons as well. Many more modern games have ended up separating objectives in an effort to provide stronger narratives to players, but the reality is that having those objectives shared creates a strong narrative in a different way. So, when designing objectives into the game, it's important to make sure that the vast majority of them overlap. As a corollary to that however, it's important that they don't all end up in the same places either.
I wholeheartedly agree. The biggest failing of EQ1 was the division of where some classes gear dropped compared to others. Plane of Hate/Fear being solid examples of very poor design decisions. The holy trinity had their gear in PoHate while the lesser classes (aka hybrids) found their gear in PoFear. Guess which zone was raid more often? Not to mention PoHate was a cakewalk compared to PoFear. Content needs to be designed such that everyone can find something (or several things) for their class in the same zones/off the same mobs so that nobody is left out because 'going to kill that mob just for your drop is not worth our time'.
Nephele said:Third - content and objectives should be built with interdependency in mind. A lot of games, even the older ones, pay lip service to interdependency, but then they set their content up to not really require more than the very basics. Pantheon should not go that route. A lot of this comes down to the idea of the "quaternity". There should be places where you really need CC of some type. Or where you really need a scout to sneak in and hit the lever, or a tracker to find the hidden location of the monster's lair. There should be fights where you really need debuffs, or resists, or interrupts in order to get through the fight. I'm not saying that places need to be designed with constraints like "must have a rogue in party", but the content itself should expect players to leverage a full range of abilities in order to make it through easily.
The idea of 'you must have a rogue in the party' or you cannot go somehwere is, again, poor design decision. There should always be some alternate way to deal with something, perhaps not as efficient or as reliable, but still an alternative. While the Rogue could easily pick a lock, a wizard could use magic (and some significant amount of time) to get past the lock. Alternate forms of crowdcontrol (roots, snares, magical cages/walls) are another example. The point here is there should never be just one way to do something.
I find you post mostly true. I am not sure that emulators are not "dumbed down" though despite statements denying it. DAoC Phenoix server crafting is dirt simple compared to Vanilla and SI based DAoC.
Your suggestions are fairly well thought out and I will disagree with Vandraad's disagreement. I have always thought it weird that named mobs who clearly have legs....don't use them. Sure let the King of Middenpile pretend he is a cubicle monkey from nine to five. After that maybe he can wander to grab a beer or watch some TV. Maybe he actually does sleep in a bed and not just hang out in a Throne room. Exceptions as always do exist, maybe the mob is an inaimate object infused with a sentience as opposed to most boss mobs in most MMOs to date which should in fact be Animate.
Nephele,
Having not only played numerous emulators, but also having ran them, configured and adjusted them, a lot of the problems are that most of them out there don't apply even the core concepts of the rules and functions of the original game. EQ for instance was a very subtle and simple MUD based system, but... it was the balance of everything that provided the challenge. I tried numerous emulators and none of them captured the play of the original because speed in leveling, travel, systems, etc.. had all been adjusted to that of the perception of modern view.
I took a WoW emulator and adjusted it to its original values in travel, leveling, resting, etc... and it was painful for some of the people playing as they had either never really experienced release WoW or had forgotten how slow the process was. The same was with EQ emulators. P1999 is not EQ, not even close, it is a misrembering of the speed of travel, down time, combat time, etc... which is why when you go back to such games, it seems... like it is far easier, less challenging, etc.. and that is... because it is.
Now certainly previous knowledge of the game is a HUGE advantage. As much as we think we forget, we really do remember a lot (Which is why in concepts of nostalgia, "some" people may change their outlook after they experience it) and this does give an advantage, but... that should only have an effect on some elements of efficiency (ie where to go, what to do, what is the best approach and solution). That said, even having that prior knowledge in release based EQ, it did not make the game night and day difference in result. More efficient as I said, yes... but not to the level where it was "disturbing how easy it was..." that is the emulator getting it wrong, often purposefully so as the developer decides that a given feature or element of play is "tedious, boring, uneeded, etc..". That is why I argue very strongly for those small elements of play people often dismiss as when you remove them all, you often get the result as you describe. It is also why when people attempt to use emulators as evidence of anything, I can only say.. Apples to Oranges. /shrug
Tanix said:That is why I argue very strongly for those small elements of play people often dismiss as when you remove them all, you often get the result as you describe.
It might surprise you to hear that you and I (and many here in the community that you find yourself in opposition to) actually agree on a great many things Tanix. Our differences are generally more a matter of perspective and delivery, rather than intent.
But yeah, I definitely think some of those EMUs are not actually going back to the original experience, as advertised - and I'm sure that's also a factor in the experiences I've had in them.
Neph,
Well written as always and you capture a lot of the issues of content becoming dull and repetitive. As I prefer a play experience closer to a fantasy simulation than a fantasy theme park I am 100% on board with moving and changing named mobs. Static spawn points in my mind are things that should only exist in proto type proof of concept builds, after that its basically saying “this is a loot piñata game”. Its not hard at all to give mobs a wander path or general movement algorithms, if a Roomba can do it then so can a guard.
@ Vandraad Second point
I think there is a good middle ground between fully procedural and say a 3x5 matrix of possible outcomes. Those outcomes could be influenced by many different factors. An example a dungeon could have 4 different clans inhabiting it. Each clan has its own special attacks and weakness. Each clan also has 4 different class builds. Finally the dungeon as a whole could have 4 ranks Private, Sargent, Lieutenant, and Captain.
There is only one Captain at a time and 4 lieutenants. When those guys respawn it checks against the total number of mobs of each clan currently alive. Whichever has the most gets the new Captain. Likewise which of the groups have a lieutenant spawn could be based on areas last populated by different clans. The captain would wonder from the Captains room to his clans barracks and the lieutenants would have patrol routes that they would attempt to protect and get more of their own clan in an area.
At any given time different clan and class combinations could be the Captain and finding the captain can be part of the dungeon crawl. The drops of the captain would also be influenced by its Clan/Class combination with some common to all drops.
In my opinion this makes for an overall much more dynamic game experience without going full procedurally generated.
Nephele said:
Tanix said:
That is why I argue very strongly for those small elements of play people often dismiss as when you remove them all, you often get the result as you describe.
It might surprise you to hear that you and I (and many here in the community that you find yourself in opposition to) actually agree on a great many things Tanix. Our differences are generally more a matter of perspective and delivery, rather than intent.
It does not surprise me that you say that, but I respectfully disagree on "some peoples" positions as such (honestly Nephele, I have had few issues with your positions on game play as you haven't gotten heavy into game play arguments in discussions I have been in, rather my contention with you has been your objections to my comments being sensitive enough to the feelings of others). I am a logically focused person and I don't care about emotions when it comes to objecting to an argument I can show to be having issues. I don't see a persons argument as an extension of themselves, so I don't see showing an argument invalid as being a personal attack (some however do).
As for a lot of people here wanting the same thing? This... I disagree as I don't argue the people, I argue the arguments and many arguments ma\y claim one thing, but then when pressed on the details, argue another. That is, I have seen some argue they want difficult and meaningful play, but then advocate for solutions that contradict that very concept using subjective arguments of "tedium, boring, or something not being fun" as a premise to objecting to a given design.
So I have no problems with people disagreeing with me, providing they apply logic and not fallacies (even then I will attempt to point out such and not resort to evasive attacks), but I strongly think that emotional objections on the aspect of what is considered to be "civil" discussion and delivery to be more projection of emotional imbalance than an honest attempt at civil dialog.
All I ask is people leave their emotions at the door and stop making assumptions as to the "intent" of the delivery and focus more on the content of the discussion.
Nephele said:
But yeah, I definitely think some of those EMUs are not actually going back to the original experience, as advertised - and I'm sure that's also a factor in the experiences I've had in them.
Which is why there is a lot of contention with some players who claim that because they experienced some private emulators version of what they think the game was 20 years ago. Such is not an effective evaluation tool for establishing what was, what is, and what should be.
-Applaud @Naphele
Unfortunately, this is something that very few people will understand Nephele (or will at least argue the points).
Also unfortunately, although I agree with your recommendations, your recommendations will "likely" be mute topics and I'll try to give my reasoning:
-Topic 1 - will be circumvented withint a few months of the game being live by streamers and farmers/grinders that will invevitably get to max level within 6-8 months and numbergrind to find the min/max combinations and post them on some publically accesible elitist site listing a lot of (if not all) special encounters and spawn timers, even if those timers are somewhat random and spawn locations vary... there will be a formula to it (there has to be because even programed randomized algorithms are based on math).
-Topic 2 - the same as topic 1 will happen for quest lines in regard to some players posting every step of every quest (this may take longer than a few months due to the inability to "grind" through a quest). But I do not doubt that over a couple of years all quest content (along with maps/locations) will be commonly accessed by the public.
-Topic 3 - I believe they are generating content with groups in mind, but with that said, a good/experienced MMO player will "likely" be able to solo non-dungeon content. To your point, the difficulty and excitement of playing MMOs in the past was that we were learning; most players now-days knows how to do things like kite or otherwise prevent an NPC from dealing damage, split pulls, or how to maximize the use of their resources to defeat an NPC. If they design a game that doesn't allow a new MMO player to make mistakes, the game will lose subscribers. They (unfortunately for some of us) need to cater to the lowest demoninator which would allow the above average player the ability to solo.
This is in no way a bash on your topic because I agree wholeheartedly that people are misplacing the source of their nostalgia and PRotF needs to address some major issues that have plagued us in modern MMOs; and to that point I believe that they are (within reason). But some people's expectations may be a bit exaggerated.
The real nostalgia came from the adventure of exploring/understanding the "unknown", while the issue with the "unknown" today is that it only takes a few clicks of a keyboard and mouse to learn everything about anything. A lot of people that don't accept this phenomenon about themselves compared to where our society is today will be greatly dissapointed if they are expecting PRotF to re-invent the wheel, or even worse, if they expect PRotF to regress just to make things more difficult because of the nostalgia they had back when the wheel was just stone and everything was really fun for them... because nobody knew better.
I was just thinking about this very topic the past couple of days as I have spent a couple of weeks now playing on the P99 blue server. I am both disappointed and relieved to learn from Tanix that this server is not as close to the original as I thought. I'm disappointed because I really was hoping for that old EQ challenge. The relief comes from learning I'm not completely crazy and that there are apparently siginificant differences between P99 and the original EQ. Like Nephele, I was chalking this up to to much player knowledge (which I still believe to be a big part of the problem) but now I know there are other contributing factors in play.
In short, I like Nephele's suggestions. The more dynamic the world is the better. The more interdependacy between adventurers the better. The more social we are encouraged to be the better.
Very well written post. And later in the thread is the answer to what we need to do anytime a game situation just isn't that good.
((I am stealing this, just a heads up. From now on whenever anyone tells me that mobs or NPCs can't do something intelligent or dynamic, my response is going to be "if a Roomba can do it" :)))
Suck it up and move along.
Now I need to make some silly meme image to go along with it. Something with a cat sitting on the Roomba as a dog chases it with a caption reading "Dynamic Content, so easy a Roomba can do it."
