consequence
Latest
EVE Evolved: Consequences and conflict
I've always considered EVE Online to be the model sandbox MMO and a template that could theoretically be applied to other titles. Whether you believe it's by careful design or a happy accident, EVE has stumbled on a formula that clearly works and has helped the game stay popular for over a decade. I've written before about the many interconnected parts that make EVE's sandbox model work and how pulling out essential features such as item loss on death or adding foreign mechanics like global banking could cause the whole game to fall apart. But there's one aspect I didn't really cover in depth: consequences for negative behaviour. In his latest Some Assembly Required column, Massively's Jef Reahard argued that EVE can't be considered the quintessential sandbox MMO because it lacks consequences for bad behaviour. While I would argue that EVE is as close to the ideal model of the genre as exists at the moment, I'm forced to agree with Jef's assessment. Almost all of the major events in EVE's recent history that have hit the gaming media have been about theft or war, with tales of massive scams and alliance warfare painting New Eden in a dark and violent light. The ultimate sandbox would be equally capable of birthing incredible stories of exploration and players working together to build magnificent things, not just chaos and death in the gloomy depths of interstellar space. In this week's EVE Evolved, I look at the lack of consequence for negative actions in EVE Online, whether it causes negative behaviour, and why sandboxes need to be about more than just destruction.
GDC Europe 2011: Freelance designer identifies key problem with MMOs
Sometimes we don't stop and think about just how strange our games are from a logical standpoint, but freelance designer Ernest Adams has, and he's not that pleased. Speaking to a crowd at GDC Europe, Adams said that the biggest problem in MMOs is that there's a disconnect between what the game tells us it's doing and what is actually happening. Mobs can never truly be "killed" since they respawn; NPCs don't perform any promised actions after you complete their tasks; and quests can be abandoned without any consequences. Adams feels that player actions should be able to change the world in a real, significant way and be permanent (including the possibility of, yes, permadeath). Player choice should trump developer intentions, he says, quests should be unique to each player, and the game should ultimately have an ending. Using the concept of a fictitious MMO called The Blitz Online, Adams hypothesizes how this might be accomplished. The game would take place during the attacks on London during World War II, and players would have to take action to shore up the city's infrastructure and defenses lest the situation grow worse. If enough players pitched in using their various skills, morale in the area would increase and the Nazis would eventually give up the attacks, causing the "win" condition for all. By focusing on player choice and a dynamic game world, Adams hopes that the experience would become much more real and personal for players. However, he admits that such a project might be a long shot: "I realize this game breaks almost all the rules."
The Soapbox: In defense of consequence
Disclaimer: The Soapbox column is entirely the opinion of this week's writer and does not necessarily reflect the views of Massively as a whole. If you're afraid of opinions other than your own, you might want to skip this column. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I've gathered you here today to present to you a defense for a feature that has been all but forgotten in recent MMOs, and which tends to solicit uproar from entire communities if it's so much as mentioned. That feature, as you may have guessed from the title, is consequence. One of the things that initially drew me to Massively, and inadvertently led to my writing for them, was Sera Brennan's columns, which frequently covered the topic of persistence in MMOs. I'm a die-hard, borderline militant advocate of increasing the levels of persistence in games, and I feel that implementing consequences for players' actions is a huge part of taking MMOs from generally mindless games to true persistent worlds. "But Matt," you say, "I don't want a persistent world. The one I live in is hard enough as it is! I just want to play a game and unwind, not have to master goblin economical theory as it relates to the sociopolitical climate of an imaginary universe." And that's just peachy! There are dozens of games on the market tailored to players such as yourself, but only a select handful tailored to players such as myself who desire a more immersive world to live in during their spare time. The incoming rant, obviously, is geared toward that type of player.
The Daily Grind: The consequence of PvP
PvP has been an important part of the MMO genre right from the start, but it hasn't stayed the same in any way. The earliest implementation in Ultima Online made PvP completely non-consensual and wholly one-sided: you could be killed at any time, and the victor gets to take everything on your person with impunity. At this point, the "default" standard is closer to World of Warcraft, in which the victor is rewarded, the loser inconvenienced at worst, and no real lasting damage is done. Of course, there are players who prefer the older style, where PvP has lasting consequences, and games such as Darkfall are specifically designed to cater to the older style. But there are PvP focused games such as Warhammer Online which stilll follow the low-impact model, with goodies for the winner but no huge penalty to the defeated. So what are your thoughts on the gradual erosion of high-stakes PvP from the mainstream? Is it a good way to keep more casual players from being annhilated needlessly, or does it remove too much of the game's excitement and unpredictability? What do you think is a fair penalty for getting killed, if indeed there is one?
CCP Games lead economist on social structures in EVE Online
Phil Elliott from Gamesindustry.biz recently conducted an interview with CCP Games Lead Economist Dr. Eyjólfur Guðmundsson (known as CCP Dr. EyjoG) titled "Star Bucks." While the interview discussed the importance of social structures in EVE Online given the game's single-shard nature and of course the game's economics, he was asked questions about gameplay and some of the core foundations of the game -- namely the freedom to act and the consequences that result (or the perceived lack of consequences). Dr. EyjoG was asked about the concept of trust in the sandbox game, how some players feel there's not enough reciprocity in terms of consequences for one's actions in EVE. "Should we provide more security, more traceability -- that would help it out, but it's definitely a game design and balance question. For us we see the universe as it is, we don't see that need... at this point at least," Dr. EyjoG responded. The interview also hinted at some of the as-yet unrealized possibilities in the game such as player-requests to tie sovereignty in with rules that govern those regions of controlled territory and what the game might be like years down the line.
Is there any real honor in PvP?
In reading through my list of video game blogs I came across a fascinating post on Got Game. Andrew Whelps discusses how he views the WoW PvP battle system to be one without honor, since the battle has no real consequence. It's a "dirty war" sort of scenario, wrapped in an idealized fantasy. Interesting to contemplate really. The notion that our battle has no consequence to the real world is valid. We run our battles either in instances, or in the world. In the instances, we have no context as to why we must kill, only know we are there to defeat the enemy. We hate them, therefore they must die. The NPCs will respawn, the opposing faction will resurrect, no harm done. We perform brutal acts that have no affect on our environment. If we raid Crossroads or Lakeshire the towns do not burn, the landscape remains unchanged.
