I'm all for innovation in video games, but I don't see how permanent death
can be introduced into today's MMORPG's. It is rarely seen in any modern
game, console or PC. In fact, XBOX's insane mech simulator Steel Battalion
is the only game I can think of that ERASES YOUR SAVE GAME FILES when you
die. That is a game for the hardcore of the hardcore (yes, I have my copy).

Players don't like permanent death. Even our much-beloved Alternate Reality
series had a definite penalty for dying. Your character became "lost" and
had to be re-joined (at the cost of a stat point). So what did we as
players do? We got into the habit of backing up our character disk each and
every time we quit out and saved the game. It became a ritual to override
what we players saw as a bad design decision. We felt more free to explore
this wonderful digital world when we did not fear the penalties of death.

I'm not saying there should always be no penalties for death, but it should
be appropriate and not prevent the players from having fun (XP penalties
seem to work well as XP can always be rebuilt just by playing the game). It
also should not prevent them from ever exploring until they have leveled up
way more than they should in a "safer" zone of the game (how many levels can
you gain by slaying rats all day?). Some of us have done this: hanging
around in the low level area longer than you should, gaining levels slowly
just so that you will have an extra leg up when you explore the next area.
It is tedious, but often effective.

Tony


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Pinal [danp--massmedia.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:14 PM
To: <Address Masked>
Subject: Re: Why Virtual Worlds are Designed By Newbies - No, Really!


I think the article makes its point very well. It describes very well
the players whom publishers will cater to and possibly must cater to.
And this is unfortunate.

I believe WoW is open beta now. A few of the guys here at work still
play it. They are also the ones that never played a MMOG before. Most
of us familiar with the genre have dropped it. The problem with WoW is
that it was a much better game in alpha. Even with missing races it was
more fun and more complete than any other MMORPG I ever played. None of
us could believe we were playing an alpha. Then right before the
transition to beta Blizzard let in a slew of players many of whom had
never played an RPG ever. The message boards became overwhelmed with
screaming, whining and complaining. The game was massively altered to
resemble the familiar they whined about and accomodations were made that
totally altered gameplay and made it less fun,

Actually, if I ever get the chance to create another RPG I would make
permanent death an integral part of it.(It needn't be as horrible as you
think. ) Sorry to hear about Ryzom, I was a little curious about it.


Dan

Piringer, Frank wrote:

>I think the short answer is, companies need to stop releasing MMOs that
>are still in beta. Not stop beta tests -- stop selling the game as if
>it's a complete world. Like most games, MMOs rely on hype and the 1st
>month sales to get them into the red. Unfortunately, MMOs also require
>a monthly commitment to stay afloat, to pay for things like electricity
>to run the world servers. The problem is, a poorly released MMO will
>not keep the excited fan base if there is nothing to intrest them, or if
>the interface is buggy or if the client crashes frequently. I think
>this kept decent MMOs such as Planetside and Anarchy Online from ever
>really catching on, and will always be a problem regardless of newbies
>or not.
>
>Personally, while trying to force myself through the Saga of Ryzom demo,
>I was crying in frustration as I tried to learn the complex and poorly
>designed interface. I will never know what the advanced features of the
>game were, because I immediately uninstalled the game and have become
>disillusioned with it. Unless I were to really see some glowing reviews
>over a new and updated interface, the rest of the game and all it's
>features can rot for all I care.
>
>On the other hand, FFXI was an amazingly simple game to get into. It
>was clean, had a short learning curve, and a ton of things to do and
>explore. Perhaps it was because it was already released in Japan for a
>while, but I think it was more than that: I think that by keeping things
>simple at first, then making the game more complex as you advance
>(instead of dumping everything on you at once) Square was able to keep
>the players who were testing the water and turn them into fans.
>Blizzard will be taking a very similar tactic towards World of Warcraft,
>so I hear -- the game will be designed from the bottom up to be as
>user-friendly as possible. This is not to say that there won't be
>unpopular features or the dreaded "Blizzard Nerf" patch around the
>corner to piss everyone off. But by having a clear design philosophy up
>front and not throwing the newbies to the wolves (THE biggest reason
>Lineage will never become mainstream) it stands a chance to survive.
>
>It's really a damn shame about Earth: Above and Beyond -- the demo I
>tried out seemed really cool, but I guess they learned an important
>lesson: players don't like exploring empty space and repetitive fetch
>quests. Give us some scenery and something interesting to do, and we'll
>forgive the occasional unpopular decision.
>
>Just keep away from the "Permanent Death" idea. In a persistent world,
>the worst thing that could happen is to lose a carefully constructed and
>much cared for avatar. I didn't spend 1000 hours and a hundred bucks to
>watch my guy go down in flames because I entered the wrong area at too
>low a level.
>
>--Frank
>
>