(...This is an introduction to a series about a software project of mine. Go here for all related posts...)
I don't play a lot of RPG's or immersive strategy games because, generally speaking, they require too much time and investment in their particular universes. For example, if we're looking at a large MMO like...WoW? In order to succeed (highest levels, epic gear) one has to get into it...balancing training, loadouts, party roles, and specializations while eying upcoming patches and maintaining a fluid list of in-game contacts. The dynamic is similar in heavier, single-player RPG's like Oblivion, though there is more emphasis on replaying different ways.
I don't play a lot of RPG's or immersive strategy games because, generally speaking, they require too much time and investment in their particular universes. For example, if we're looking at a large MMO like...WoW? In order to succeed (highest levels, epic gear) one has to get into it...balancing training, loadouts, party roles, and specializations while eying upcoming patches and maintaining a fluid list of in-game contacts. The dynamic is similar in heavier, single-player RPG's like Oblivion, though there is more emphasis on replaying different ways.
The time thing is most interesting to me. It seems natural a game of any sophistication, replayability, and (especially) multi-player appeal ought to take a while to complete, but we have our tolerances. Game designers balance rules around a number of issues, and I'm sure these are some of them -- how long is too long for the average person to devote and convince friends to remain involved, how fast can they become immersed in it, etc. I'm guessing the time requirements for structured games we play today break down as follows:
- Pick-up-able: Poker, blackjack, playground-style basketball/soccer, crossword puzzles/sudoku, FPS video games (Call of Duty, Team Fortress), and table-top-style video games (Space Invaders, Wii Sports)
- Family game time: Scrabble, Trivial Pursuit/Pictionary, bridge,chess/Go/checkers/backgammon, full-field soccer/football/basketball, RTS video games (Age of Empires), RPG video game stages (Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy), simpler MMO quests/missions (WoW/EvE)
- LAN party/Game night: Table-top RPG's/D&D, weirder card games (Illuminati?), larger MMO instances (WoW/EvE), clan FPS play (Call of Duty, Team Fortress), multiplayer RTS (geez...um....Age of Empires, combat flight sims, Homeworld?)
- Stream of consciousness (near real-time): Turn-based web games (Warring Factions, several dozen others), chess by mail/email, Empire, God knows what else...
Aren't I approaching this backwards, however? Why not play the game I want rather than fuss about how long it takes? To tell the truth, with all the time in the world I can't think of one game on this list I wouldn't enjoy playing, especially with the right crowd. What can I say? Fun is fun. The bad news is I have hardly any time to sink into a game universe plus, curiously, I experience guilt when away from people and present reality on the order of a "game night". This is a grownup thing, I fear -- that used to be my life, as a teen.
In fact, no MMO or RPG has held my attention beyond seeing the sights and the gist of the fauna. I love that first part -- seeing all the ships in EvE, traveling to as many realms as possible with my pitiful WoW characters, etc. Bumping into a good corp/guild/faction has taken that further sometimes, but the other-ness of these environments eventually runs me off. The reason SecondLife has worked so well is because there is no game -- no points, classes, whatever -- except for in-SL, user-created game environments, which one can take or leave.
In SL, I take a few of these in-game games, leave most, and otherwise spend my time socializing and exploring, since the content keeps expanding and evolving. That suits the adventurer in me but isn't competitively satisfying, and truthfully I need both.
Anyway, the class of time above I'm most intrigued with is "stream of consciousness". I've always liked the idea of conquest-type, real-time-ish games such as Warring Factions or Empire. The examples I've seen suffer from the other concern I mentioned above, however -- too esoteric. As I've said, the grind of delving through rules, classes, etc. is part of it, but I also have a gripe about fairness. The deeper/broader a game's content and rules get, the more players have to align with designers' fetishes to succeed.
Players which buy into designers' visions learn to game with them, anticipating and exploiting the intent of tech trees, distributions of weapon and skill effects, etc. You're either inside that envelope or a sucker. Call me a sore loser, but I don't like that. I like clear (ok, not "simple") game constructs and interactions among them. I want rules to be less than an hour's worth of reading and next-move threats and advantages to be straightforward. This compels the mind to wander and step ahead.
More enjoyably, this feeds paranoia and rewards self-discipline. I like that, if for no other reason than it's fun to watch other folks struggle with these (for a change). I'm not suggesting a lack of style or artifice -- all's fair in love and war, and tricking people is a hoot, besides. I'm saying the avenues of deception ought to be clear, not buried in minutiae, even if the act is a nasty shock. Yeah, I suppose so -- like Go and chess. Simple as dirt to play, yet impossible to always win.
So, that's my criteria: A stream-of-consciousness (near real-time), multiplayer strategy game, probably web-based, with clear, matter-of-fact rules, and a few handy places to bank a shiv.
This brings me to my next topic -- a new side project :)
- Location:Home
- Mood:
bouncy
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
kata_kita- kata_kita
- Kata Kita on SLProfiles (NSFW)
Comments
On the other hand, anything played by multiple human beings will get complex. TF2, for instance, has a pretty simple game mechanic-- nine classes with one primary weapon (and some extras for particular cases). There's no real levelling or arcane gear-- so if you're facing a Soldier, say, you know exactly what they're capable of. You can learn all the classes in a day or two. (The maps take longer to master.)
But, you're playing with humans who are constantly learning and evolving. New strategies develop; people start playing with more sophistication and (gasp) teamwork.
I'm not sure if that's what you like or not. :) I think my point is that a really simple game will only stay simple if it's single-player.