Something strange happened on my way through Frostfire Ridge
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 30 December 2014, 11:42 am
I am still on my free 10 days of Warlords of Draenor, without level cap as I have bought the expansion to get the character I wanted to play to 90. Currently questing in Gorgrond, I noticed that while I appeared to have done all the quests in Frostfire Ridge, I hadn't uncovered all of the map. So I made a tour through Frostfire Ridge for zone completion. I found some level 100 mobs, and the entrance to a dungeon, Bloodmaul Slag Mines. And the strange thing is that I instinctively reacted with revulsion to the idea of doing a dungeon. It used to be that this was my favorite part of World of Warcraft, but today I can't stand the idea of running one any more.

I believe that this is because everybody agrees that everybody else in a random group is a complete moron. The only difference is that some people would like to play dungeons normally, and believe that the chain-pulling speedrunners on amphetamines are the morons; while the speedrunners believe that the rest of the group that can't keep up with their chain-pulls are the morons. Or in math-speak, if any given random player in your group has a 50% chance of being incompatible with your play style, there is a 93.75% chance of any random group to end in unpleasantness.

On the one hand that is a problem of human nature, and people having different goals. On the other hand that is a problem of game design, or more specifically the inability of the group finder to actually group people together who fit together from their playstyle. Which in turn is connected to the problem of World of Warcraft still running on "realms" aka separated servers, even if there is some connection between them. The larger the pool you have to select group members from, the quicker you could find a group. And that would enable the LFG system to have a few more playstyle switches, where the people who would like to explore a dungeon for fun and the people who want to rush dungeons in the fastest possible time don't end up grouped together.

I did a search on the US WoW forums and found 24,000 results when searching for "vote kick". I think it is safe to say that when one of the biggest concern about a tool that groups people together is how to get rid of some of people you've been grouped with, that tool isn't working all that great.

I started playing MMORPGs over a decade ago, and my overall impression of the genre is that it has become less social with time. I do think it is a good idea for a MMORPG to have solo content, but that has to be balanced by social tools which make playing together less of a bad idea. The garrison is a fun mini-game, but it's a solo mini-game. Why not have a guild garrison as well, and have more reasons for being in a guild than just raids? I do believe there are a lot of people out there with similar play-styles, who would be quite happy playing together. It's just that the game doesn't make it easy enough for these people to connect.
Tobold's Blog



Epic crap
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 29 December 2014, 4:23 am
I think there is some serious imbalance with crafted gear in Warlords of Draenor being far too good. Example: I have a War Mill in my garrison that sometimes turns rare items found into epics. So I was killing a level 92 rare mob and he dropped a weapon which got such an epic upgrade: Smashalupagus, a 2H mace with a minimum level of 92, iLevel 547, doing 138 damage per second, and giving +77 Strength. Sounds good, doesn't it? Certainly the best weapon I found or got as quest reward in WoD yet.

Small problem: My fury warrior is wielding two crafted Steelforged Greataxes, 2H axes with a minimum level of 91, iLevel 630, doing 300 damage per second, and giving +167 Strength. And even characters without the blacksmithing profession can create those in a level 2 garrison forge. Yes, it takes 100 Truesteel Ingots, and thus takes some time, but you can get all the materials without even leaving your garrison. So there are a lot around, and on the AH they weren't all that expensive. I would be surprised if I found any better weapon in the game before reaching level 100.

So by doing something sensible, checking out the AH for gear and buying crafted gear, I basically made myself overpowered and removed all possibility of being happy about a lucky weapon drop for 10 levels. I don't think crafting systems should work that way.
Tobold's Blog



Ahead of the curve
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 28 December 2014, 4:32 am
In fields where it really matters, like education or job performance, there is an ongoing discussion whether all natural talent is distributed along a bell curve. But the criticism is more about in how far one can shift one's position on that curve, and in how far for any particular field the extreme ends differ from a perfect Gaussian distribution. The bell curve suggests natural inequality, and inequality is always a hot topic. What we know from a scientific point of view is that if you take a large enough group and measure something like an IQ quotient (as flawed as that may be) or reaction speed or any similar natural ability, you will get something close to a bell curve, where around two-thirds of the group are within one standard deviation from average.

If you tried to measure gaming skill, you'd quickly realize that the matter is complicated by the factor of experience. Gaming skill is something which can be learned, and effect of experience on performance is large compared with the natural talent distribution. Gaming skill measured among a large group of gamers of one game would not follow a bell curve. The very low end of the curve would be underrepresented, as people who don't manage the basics of a game would be likely to stop playing. And the higher performance end is more populated than in a bell curve, due to people with a lot of experience in this or similar games. Due to the effect of experience the overall distribution would be broader than a bell curve, with the best players considerably outperforming the average ones.

All of this leads to some problems in game design. Games tend to be most enjoyable if they are neither too hard, nor too easy for the person playing. If you have a broad distribution of performance, it gets rather hard to make a game which is enjoyable for everybody, especially if there is no way for the individual player to adjust difficulty settings. As games have frequently been designed by people who are gamers themselves, and who through their experience are at the high end of the curve, many games have been designed to be most enjoyable by the best performers. But there is some indication that this is changing.

The video games industry is suffering from overproduction leading to low prices, leading to lots of financially failed games and games studios closing. So the investors are looking for the recipe for success, and today that appears to be the Blizzard model of casual, accessible games (note that Forbes is a business magazine, not a games magazine), maybe even Free2Play. However distorted the bell curve of gaming skill has become by experienced players, there are still far more average players out there than good players, and it makes financial sense to target the largest group. Especially if you consider that gamers are getting older, and with age reaction time goes down, but disposable income goes up.

The obvious problem with that is that experienced gamers can get ahead of the curve and drop out of the target audience for a game. I've been playing games for a very long time, and there are some Blizzard games I can't enjoy because they are too simple for me. I've played Magic the Gathering for a decade, and proved intricate knowledge of the complicated rules by becoming a DCI judge, so a simplified game like Hearthstone isn't enjoyable to me.

Not only can veterans find casual, accessible games too easy, there is also the added problem of games recycling so much stuff from previous games. Veterans can get hit by a "been there, done that" sensation very early in a new game. That is pretty much my reaction to Warlords of Draenor. I can see that Blizzard did a good job on that expansion, but do I really want to go out on another quest to kill 10 monsters? On the upside the trend to more accessible games means I can now play genres of games that I previously neglected. I am not good at all with first person shooter games, being slow and not very experienced. But I can enjoy an accessible FPS game like Destiny.

This trend towards more accessible games that are financially more successful also explains the paradox that lately the games that sold best got mixed critics reviews. There are a lot of experienced gamers among game journalists, and just like me they can easily find themselves ahead of the curve for which a game was designed, and not enjoying it all that much. But in as far as the game journalists aren't representative of the skills of the average game buyer, it becomes questionable whether their reviews are actually still relevant.
Tobold's Blog



Visiting Draenor
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 25 December 2014, 4:58 am
As I have some extra time over the Christmas holidays, and I hear a lot of good things about Warlords of Draenor, I decided to take up Blizzard on their offer to test the expansion out 10 days for free. Up to now I'm level 92 and got my garrison up to level 2. But somehow I feel my experience with mobile games is working against me: The garrison sub-game of World of Warcraft is nice if you never have played anything similar. But the Apple app store and Google Play store are full of games that works like that, based on real-time resource gathering and gaining levels and experience for not actually doing very much. I've seen games that are better than the garrison game, even if I appreciate the integration with the main game.

It doesn't help that the character with who I am testing this has alchemy and herbalism as his professions. As it turns out the garrison is a lot more useful to other professions. Alchemy is pretty weak in WoD, and the alchemy building basically allows you to make improved flasks which give 250 in an ability instead of the normal version which gives 100. In comparison the stuff you can make with blacksmithing or tailoring or leatherworking now is far more powerful.

Apart from the garrison, Warlords of Draenor is okay for an expansion, but not great. It's the same old, same old questing game. I like that the zones aren't as linear as they were in some previous expansions, and I liked visiting Nagrand (in spite of that not being level-appropriate) in its new version. But of my guild with 568 characters in the roster I've never seen more than 4 online now. So I found the guild message about the limited time remaining for the Molten Core remembrance raid somewhat depressing, we used to have 40 people online to raid Molten Core with. Without the people the game just isn't the same any more. I don't think I'll stay beyond the 10 free days.
Tobold's Blog



World of Warcraft thinking about Free2Play
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 22 December 2014, 2:39 am
Free2Play is such an imprecise term, most MMORPGs can be played for free in one form or another, for example in free trials. So you could say that WoW has been Free2Play for quite some time. But in a recent developer post, Blizzard said they were thinking about introducing "tradable game-time tokens for the purpose of exchanging them in-game with other players for gold". Which is pretty much the least controversial way of allowing people to play the full game for free. It diminishes (but not removes) the illegal gold farming business, by giving players a legal way to buy gold. And at the same time it gives other players a way to turn their gold into subscription time to save money.

I don't think World of Warcraft is the ideal game for this sort of tradable game-time tokens. The game economy has always carefully excluded most of the stuff that players actually want. Buying a million gold pieces is probably a lot less useful in WoW than the equivalent in many other games. Unless the last expansion has introduced a ton of tradable epics, I'm not quite sure what people are going to want to spend their gold on. In my experience (from previous expansions), where through auction house trades I achieved a pile of gold, was that you can't even properly equip a twink with that gold, because the AH never has any decent gear for sale.

Nevertheless there are obviously a lot of people buying gold illegally, so giving them a legal option is a good idea. And those players who now have a lot of gold can play WoW for free. It will be interesting to see how that works out, and whether it increases the subscription numbers further, after the recent growth spurt.

It is somewhat ironic that the game who invented those tradable game-time tokens, EVE Online, is going in the reverse direction: EVE will in the future make "input broadcasting and input multiplexing bannable offenses". Or in other words, EVE will make multi-boxing a lot more difficult, which will result in less accounts, and less trades of ISK to PLEX.
Tobold's Blog



What do you think of 2014 in gaming?
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 18 December 2014, 8:55 am
It's not even Christmas yet, and I've already seen several articles on the internet claiming that 2014 was the worst year in gaming ever. The evidence cited in those articles is a varying list of triple A games that failed to impress, or even failed to be playable on launch day. Seen from that point of view, the MMORPG genre isn't an exception: Both The Elder Scrolls Online and Wildstar, the two big triple A releases of 2014 failed to hold onto their subscribers. Somewhat surprisingly the one MMORPG triple A product of 2014 that earned both critical and commercial success was Warlords of Draenor, an expansion for a 10-year old game.

But what if we look at 2014 in a different way? Do triple A games really matter all that much?

Personally, for me as a gamer, what is important isn't the success or failure of any single game. What is important for me is whether I have a game to play, and whether I have fun playing that game. And looking back at 2014 with that in mind, I don't think the year was all that bad. I played lots of different games, and I had lots of fun with many of them. And the games I played weren't even very expensive!

I am wondering of those game journalists talking about a bad year are too much considering gaming from the point of view of the industry. Honestly, I wouldn't want to work in the gaming industry today, nor would I invest my money in it. As I see it we are in the middle of a huge glut of games, and that is driving down prices and profits. $60 games being a disappointment has a lot to do with there being $6 games which are just as much fun. I spent a good amount of gaming time this year with iPad games that cost only a tiny fraction of the cost of a $60 console game. And because the PC gaming industry is producing games much faster than I can play them, I can afford to wait and buy them in Steam sales for 50% to 90% off.

I would say that the "bad year" is still to come. We are in the glut phase of the videogames pork cycle. It might well be that after years of overproduction we will have some years of underproduction, until the industry is profitable again. Well, Steam will probably survive and I have a large library of games in reserve in case we see those 7 lean years.

How was 2014 in gaming for you? Did you buy a lot of disappointing games, or did you enjoy the consumer benefits of the surplus in supply?
Tobold's Blog



Breaking away from the Ubisoft formula
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 17 December 2014, 6:05 am
I am having great fun playing Assassin's Creed IV : Black Flag, cruising my pirate ship through the Caribbean, exploring, and getting into naval battles. I'm pretty much ignoring the story mission at the moment, because pirating is so much more fun. And somewhere that is the problem with AC4: It is great fun *because* it doesn't play like the other Assassin's Creed games. I mean, yes, I climbed all the towers of Havana and visited all the points I found that way. But after one city like that I was free to do something a lot more interesting, and lead a pirate life instead of the life of a tower climber / parkour runner. The Ubisoft formula doesn't work all that well for me, and I'm happiest in the parts of AC4 which break away from that formula.

One problem I have with Assassin's Creed in general is that they aren't all that great as stealth games. I haven't played Unity yet, but up to there the AC games didn't even have a crouch button. In AC4 I can only "sneak" if there is a sugar field or similar brushwood around. So frequently when I am approaching a target from behind to assassinate it, my avatar is showing the same animation that he has when strolling through a city. Compared to other stealth games I played, like Deus Ex : Human Revolution, the stealth movement in Assassin's Creed is really weak.

Related to that is the fact that combat is somewhat easy. It takes a *lot* of enemies at the same time before they even start to cause you any trouble. In general you can just wait motionless until you see the little red icon of somebody attacking you, press the counter button followed by the attack button, and the enemy is dead. So in many cases I didn't bother with sneaking, because simply killing everybody was a lot easier.

Naval combat in AC4 on the other hand is really good. You have various weapons you can use, cannons, mortars, fire barrels. And as the enemy ships have different strengths and come in different numbers, and there are also interesting weather effects to consider, there is a lot of variety to naval combat. The only thing missing is wind direction and speed, the "sailing ship" in fact moves like a motor ship, with equal speed all the time and in every direction. Over a quarter of a century ago, Sid Meier's Pirates! had wind direction, but apparently Ubisoft judged that to be too complicated.

So the game I am mostly playing is labeled "Assassin's Creed", but the part of it that I am playing isn't actually part of the Assassin's Creed brand and series. If I play any other game of the series (not counting the mobile AC Pirates game), I won't be able to play the part of AC4 that I am having fun with. I don't know if any of the newer AC games even has much in the way of other gameplay elements than the classic tower climbing / parkour running / assassination Ubisoft formula.
Tobold's Blog



The Favorites of Selune - Skin Deep - Session 8
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 16 December 2014, 9:01 am
In the previous session the Favorites of Selune had returned to the Duchy of Faywyr as ambassadors for the svirfneblin, giving them the opportunity to investigate who had turned them into svirfneblin during their previous stay there.

This session was a mix of two main things: Their diplomatic negotiations, and their investigation. The group had to attend several official functions, like a cocktail party, a negotiations session, and a banquet in their honor. But they also had some time to roam the town of Plumton freely and investigate their two clues: The bellows they had found, and the dark grey powder which had been blown by the bellows into their room and caused their transformation.

The bellows had a maker's mark from leatherworker Master Dynrod, which they had previously encountered. So after some discussion they went to him with the bellows and with some story persuaded him to reveal who had bought it. That turned out to be not much of a problem, as Dynrod had sold the bellows to a stranger he didn't trust much, and had found out later that the stranger's name was Honrak, and that he lived in the pension of the widow Jocea. So the group got all the information on the buyer. Via the security guard of the seamstresses' guild they hired a few men to keep watch on the pension, but it turned out that Honrak was never seen leaving the premises and led a very secluded life.

At the various official functions they talked with members of the court, including Princess Taidra, which they had begun to suspect of involvement in the story. While the princess was only ever seen to be charming, the players suspected her of having a motive to bring down the prince with the assassination of his lover. While the Duchy didn't have a clear law of female primogeniture, the princess was the first-born, but the duke apparently favored the prince as his heir.

In the negotiations with Prince Ular and the other negotiators of the duchy, the players made progress in dispelling the safety concerns of the duchy, where there were still a lot of people afraid of a not clearly specified "Underdark menace". Only after the negotiations the sorceress in the group started to wonder whether those negotiations had been watched secretly by somebody. So under guise of a rendezvous with the minister she seduced, she searched the room during the banquet, found places where somebody *could* have hidden and listened, but no special secret door or listening devices.

As promised the high priest of the temple of Selune introduced the adventurers to the guildmaster of the alchemists' guild. That was an elderly man, with burn marks on his beard and clothing, but eager to praise the various capabilities of his guild to the "ambassadors". He told the group that his guild has several different faculties, from the alchemy of fire (his domain), to the preparation of love potions. He even mentioned that in the basement one alchemist named Yengo was working on necrotic alchemy, like trying to raise the dead. He invited the group to visit the guild the next morning.

After the banquet there was some discussion whether the group should watch the alchemists' guild inn order to prevent anybody who had seen them discussing with the guildmaster to intervene before their visit there. But in the end they decided to just go there early and go to bed. In fact their investigation had not gone unnoticed, but the response wasn't the one they had expected: Instead of intervening at the alchemists' guild, Honrak came to their room in the middle of the night in order to assassinate them. That put the group in a tactically worse situation than if they had gone after Honrak in his lodgings. Fortunately they had put up a guard, and it was the dwarfen fighter who stood guard when Honrak came through the window. But everybody else was in their beds, and not wearing armor.

I ruled that it takes a full round to don armor, so the rogue and the druid, who both have melee attacks spent one round doing that, while the ranged and caster members didn't bother with armor. Unfortunately it was already rather late when we started that fight, so after the surprise round and two full rounds of combat we decided to stop the session and finish the fight next year.
Tobold's Blog



Companion apps
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 14 December 2014, 5:38 am
A lot of modern games are not very complicated, and don't require you to know or remember much stuff. The ultimate example of that are games with Quicktime events, where you don't even need to remember what button to push, the game will tell you. On the other end of the scale are simulations and open world games, where remembering where stuff was, or knowing the average price of a tradeable good is quite necessary for success. In the past I used a second screen on my PC where I could display such information. But today the more modern version of that concept are companion apps.

For example I recently picked up Assassin's Creed IV : Black Flag at a Steam sale. Nice game, except that is crashes to a black screen from time to time. Anyway, the game comes with a companion app which you can install on basically any tablet or smart phone. Once you synchronize the game with the app, you have a second screen for all sorts of information. Most useful is the tablet holding the map of the game, updating your position in real time; you can even select your next target on the tablet and get the marker beamed back into the game. You can also check the loads of information in your database about people, locations, documents, and so on which you found in the game, again updated in real time.

I know that other games have companion apps as well, for example Destiny or Titanfall. In the new World of Warcraft expansion, you can manage your garrison with a companion app. In that case the idea is that the WoD garrisons work a bit like mobile games, where you are supposed to do some small activity from time to time, and having access to that on a mobile platform is helpful. Watch Dogs has a companion app which lets you control the police and play against your friends who are on their PC/console. So there are a range of different concepts for companion apps, some more useful than others. But as there are less and less people out there without some mobile device, I can only presume that we will see a lot more companion apps for games in the future.
Tobold's Blog



Free speech and censorship
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 12 December 2014, 7:35 am
One Book Shelf is a company that allows indie tabletop game developers to self-publish their games as digital downloads. Somebody tried to self-publish the "Gamergate Card Game" there. Somebody else objected. One Book Shelf decided to pull the plug on that game. Some people are enraged about censorship. A different outrage about censorship recently occurred when two retailers in Australia refused to sell Grand Theft Auto V in their stores. So this might be a good moment to discuss freedom of speech and censorship.

First of all, freedom of speech is never absolute. In the United States of America, which have a strong constitutional protection of free speech in the first amendment, there is a long list of exceptions to freedom of speech recognized by the Supreme Court. Sorry Gamergaters, your death threats to women in gaming are not protected as free speech. The law recognizes that some forms of speech are likely to do so much harm, that it is better to not protect them.

But in the above cases the situation is a very different one. You could say that there is a clash of two different sides right of freedom of speech. If I owned a book shop for example, specialized in political books, I would be perfectly in my rights of freedom of speech to only carry books whose political opinions I agreed with. I would be perfectly in my rights to not sell books whose political opinions I disagree with. If I ran "The Capitalist Book Store", nobody could force me to sell Thomas Piketty's "Capital", or the version from Karl Marx.

Note that this isn't the same as a whole country banning a specific book. You can buy Grand Theft Auto V in Australia. GTA5 has not been "censored" or banned in Australia. There are just some shops which have decided that it would be better for their business not to sell this particular video game. That is a business decision, and a private business has every right to make decisions like that. If you would somehow put laws into place by which you could force a store to sell specific games, that law would effectively be censorship in itself, and hurt the right to freedom of speech of the business in question.

And it does not matter if the business making that sort of decision has a huge market share, and selling a product by different channels would be far more difficult. Steam can ban a game if the game's developers makes death threats to Gabe Newell. Yes, that makes it much more difficult to get hold of that game, but it still isn't censorship. It probably works as a business decision for Steam pour encourager les autres. Nobody is preventing the "Gamergate Card Game" to be published elsewhere, it is just one business that decided not to sell that product.

In short, your liberty to swing your fist ends where the next person's nose begins.
Tobold's Blog



Hell is other gamers
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 11 December 2014, 8:17 am
Liore from Herding Cats has an interesting blog post on alienation, which she ends with: "Hell, as it turns out, is other gamers.". I don't really want to discuss the Gamergate part of her post, because that movement kind of died after promoting their arch-enemy to national TV fame. But I was interested in Liore's tale of being insulted for playing badly in the alpha version of Heroes of the Storm. Because to me that shows that there isn't a localized problem of the players of any particular game being especially toxic, but that there is a fundamental problem with online cooperative multiplayer games.

I was born in the 60's. Which means my youth was spend without video games, but with more old-fashioned activities, like playing soccer with the neighborhood kids. And one of the fundamental rules of those kinds of games is that everybody is welcome to join. Yes, there is always the fat kid that gets picked last when establishing teams, even at that age and that long ago we kids already knew who was "performing" better than others. But anybody was still welcome to play, and there were elaborate picking schemes to make sure the two teams had about the same number of under-performers on the team and were evenly matched.

The difference that I see today is A) people don't want to be evenly matched any more, and B) given the larger population online the better players don't want to play with the under-performers any more. And I find that both stupid and sad. We have created a world in which people routinely hate the people on their own team much more than they hate the opposing team.

I quite like World of Tanks in that respect, even though I haven't played much this year. As long as you play just random battles in World of Tanks, you are likely to have a win:loss ratio of 50:50. Only if you play with pre-organized teams can you deviate much from that. A random matchmaking WoT battle is 15 vs. 15 players, and even if you performed one sigma or two above (or below) average, the overall win chance would still be very close to 50% due to you being only 3% of the players on the field.

In a 5 vs. 5 battle of a MOBA game a single over- or under-performer makes more of a difference. And there is an additional performance boost in all cooperative multiplayer online games if you play repeatedly with the same team. So if your team isn't big enough to fill all slots and you get a mix of people who are trained to play in that team and others who are new to the team, there can be a huge performance difference. That is true for MMORPG raiding as well.

What I very much dislike is the anger and expressed hate that frequently happens in those situations. I believe that in a team vs. team game a 50% win chance is the best possible outcome. If your chance to win is over 50% that means that the other team has a less than 50% chance to win, which isn't much fun for them (and might well lead to them quitting prematurely). And, perhaps even more importantly, two evenly matched teams leads to the maximum amount of challenge for both teams. One side walking over the other is not just no fun for the losers, but also kind of boring for the winners. So why do people hate being evenly matched so much?

Natural talent tends to be distributed in a normal (or Gaussian) distribution. Most people are around average, or to be more precise 68% of people are between plus 1 and minus 1 standard deviation from average. Only 5% of people are more than 2 standard deviations away from average. If you are exactly average, a random player paired with you has a 50% chance of being better or being worse than you. But if you are above average, most players are less good than you are. That is rather basic mathematics. So it is somewhat surprising that many people believe that A) they are better than average, and B) a matchmaking system should be able to always only group them with people who are at least as good as they are. Presumably all the less good players should magically be forced to enter the opposing team. You don't need to be a math genius to realize that this isn't possible. Being grouped with less good players is the normal state of affairs, and the better you play, the more likely that becomes. You should be *happy* if you are only grouped with people playing worse than you, because it means you are really good yourself.

The fundamental problem of this kind of games is that the number of people on one team is fixed. Any under-performer on a team blocks a spot onto which a better player would have contributed more to winning the game. Compare that to MMORPGs with PvP modes without restrictions, where everybody is welcome to join the zerg that is attacking that keep, because even the under-performers are better than no player at all.

I am wondering if 5 vs. 5 MOBA games are the worst possible design for an online multiplayer game. It appears to me that this setup maximizes hate between players on the same team. Maybe somebody needs to come up with a different format.
Tobold's Blog



Gutting a troll
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 9 December 2014, 3:44 am
I am not a huge fan of long dungeon crawls in tabletop roleplaying games. A sequence of "open door, kill monsters, loot" does not an interesting story make. You can have some fun moments with things like traps or interesting turns in combat, but the story-line tends to be somewhat simple. I always considered dungeon crawls to be tabletop roleplaying for beginners. In my adventures I keep them short, and intersperse them between more story-rich roleplaying encounters.

That sort of design served me well since we started our 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons campaign. 4th edition works much better with fewer, more epic fights than with lots of small fights. And a sequence of many long fights isn't a good option either. The adventure writers of Wizards of the Coast learned that over the years, and the later 4E adventures they make have exactly that mix of short dungeons and story encounters that works well. Unfortunately that is not true of the early 4E adventures, some of which are considered to be the worst adventure modules in 40 years of D&D history, and contributed much to the bad reputation of 4E.

In two or three sessions the current adventure of my campaign will end, and the idea was to also end the campaign there and start a new one. Then real life intervened: One of my players will not be able to play in the first quarter of next year. And as the start of the next campaign is crucial for the success of that campaign, I don't want to start without him. I offered to fill the gap with the 5th edition Starter Set, but my players weren't much interested in 5E (which isn't available in French). So we decided to play one more adventure of the old campaign. Which means playing at level 11, where the game changes from "heroic" to "paragon" paths, adding some extra rules.

I have the first official paragon adventure from WotC: P1 King of the Trollhaunt Warrens, both in English and French. So I decided to do that as the next adventure, so that I didn't have to start from scratch. But then of course this is one of the early 4E adventures with a long dungeon crawl: The Trollhaunt Warrens of the title have 24 rooms. Which not only risks to be a boring sequence of troll fights, but also would take too long for a "filler" adventure.

Having said that, King of the Trollhaunt Warrens has some interesting bits. The underlying story is usable, and there are a number of handouts and maps I might want to use. So what I am going to do over the Christmas holidays is to create a much shorter adventure using only the good bits of the published module. In a way the 4E encounter-centric design helps there: It is easy enough to reduce the number of rooms in a dungeon, as the game already treats them very much as being separate. I can even have some spare encounters to do or leave out in function of our progress. The Favorites of Selune will live on until April next year or so.
Tobold's Blog



Trust is easy for iPad game reviews
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 8 December 2014, 7:31 am
I saw a 5 out of 5 star review for BattleLore: Command on Pocket Tactics and immediately bought the game. In fact I buy most of the games which Pocket Tactics gives 5 stars to. But there is no PC game publication into which I put a similar degree of trust. Now on the one side that is because of the good quality of reviews on Pocket Tactics. But there are a lot of PC game publications that do good reviews too. The difference is rather that an iPad game usually costs under €10, and sometimes way under. So it is a simple matter of risk evaluation: I don't risk much by trusting the review, but I have a chance of gaining much fun. Easy!
Tobold's Blog



Back on Pandora
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 7 December 2014, 6:48 am
Steam tells me that I played Borderlands 2 for over 100 hours, while I played the original Borderlands for only 10 hours. I always had the feeling that I had messed up when playing the first Borderlands: I had experimented with various game modes early on, gotten into cooperative multiplayer at a relatively low level, and ended up being completely overpowered for the story mission. And of course if you already have epic weapons from multiplayer, the loot from lower level single-player missions isn't exactly exciting. But somehow I didn't want to start over at the time, and then simply drifted away, starting to play something else.

When I recently saw Borderlands: The Pre-Sequel on Steam, I remembered having fun with Borderlands 2. But hey, why spend 50 Euro on the pre-sequel if I haven't properly played the original Borderlands yet? So I put the pre-sequel on my wishlist for the next sale, and installed Borderlands 1 instead. I might end up playing the three games in reverse chronological order. Which is interesting in a way, for example in BL1 my choice of characters is among the main NPCs of BL2.

In single-player shooters I quite like sniper rifles. But I already played Mordecai the first time around. And sniper rifles are fun even if you don't have a character specialized in them. So this time I went for Roland. And I'll just play the single-player campaign and stay away from multiplayer.
Tobold's Blog



Use shovel with X
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 6 December 2014, 5:32 am
I pretty much stopped playing adventures somewhere in the 90's, after there had been some great games like The Secret of Monkey Island or Grim Fandango and the genre fell out of fashion. I know that with The Walking Dead from Telltale adventures are somewhat back in favor again. But I am not a fan of horror stories, and especially dislike the zombiecalypse scenario. I can never suspend my disbelief over something so silly. So I never tried The Walking Dead, and not even The Wolf Among Us. But this week Telltale released another episodic adventure on The Game of Thrones, which is much more up my alley. So I bought the game, which means paying for all episodes and only getting the first one yet. Short version of this blog post: I regretted that purchase.

Adventure games used to be about clever puzzles, and I guess some of the new ones still are. But apparently not the Telltale adventures. The gameplay consists nearly exclusively of dialogue choices and Quicktime events. Not expecting those I had problems at first in the prologue / tutorial: The tutorial taught me only mouse commands, so when suddenly an up arrow appeared on my screen I assumed I had to do some up movement with the mouse. Turns out I had to press the "W" key. But as the game hadn't used WASD movement before that point, that wasn't obvious, and would have been exactly the sort of stuff that I would expect a tutorial to be more explicit about. Once you know which button is which, the rest of the game becomes trivially easy. Press the right button when shown on the screen and win.

The dialogue choices weren't much more interesting. I experimented a bit with playing through scenes several times, but the scene always ends the same way, regardless of my dialogue choices. Stupidly the dialogue choices have a timer, and even more stupidly you can stop that timer by pressing space as pause key. So why put a timer in in the first place? So that you can leave the keyboard and the let the game play through the dialogues by itself? The game pretends that you dialogue choices have consequences, giving you messages like "Lord Forester will remember that". In fact Lord Forester will remember until the end of his life, which happens about one minute later. It is hard to believe that a dead man's memories will have a huge impact on the story later.

So overall Telltale's Game of Thrones is almost exclusively there to tell a story. The story isn't half bad. But the gameplay certainly is. It is some sort of pseudo-interactive story, where the player doesn't really have any agency, but the game tries to keep up the pretense that he has. I would have had more fun if the same story had been told in an additional episode of the HBO series. I think for a real adventure game I need to play something from Daedalic.
Tobold's Blog



The DM as game designer
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 4 December 2014, 5:43 am
Game design is a big subject on this blog. But my interest in it is not just that of a player of games. I am also a dungeon master (DM) of a Dungeons & Dragons pen & paper role-playing campaign. And part of that job is game design. Now some people will say that D&D has been designed by TSR / WotC and the DM is just some kind of referee running the game. But in reality Wizards of the Coast only sell some sort of tool kit, not a complete game. Even if you play all rules as written and only use published adventures, the DM needs to fill huge gaps either by preparation or improvisation. And thinking about game design helps to make the overall experience a better one for both the players and the DM.

One important question in that respect is one we discussed earlier this week with regards to Bioshock Infinite: In how far is the story of the adventure you are playing pre-determined? That is an open question, and the response depends very much on the group of people you are playing with. On the one hand, especially when using published adventures, there is a "main story" to each adventure, and sometimes even the whole campaign. On the other hand, theoretically at least, the players have unlimited freedom to follow the story or not. Some DMs go as far as not preparing any story at all, but just creating an open "sandbox" world for the players to interact with.

My philosophy is that the optimum is somewhere in the middle. I don't want to railroad my players into following a pre-determined story with a pre-determined outcome. But I don't want to just leave them in the middle of some generic fantasy kingdom in which nothing happens without them either. So the general idea for my adventures is that there is a story of which I know how it *would* develop if the players would not interact with it at all. For example (and now that I think of it it could actually be a rather cool adventure), I could have the players arriving in a castle in the middle of the plot of Hamlet. But the players would be able to interact with the various NPCs and change the course of the story in one way or another. Only if they behaved as passive observers would the story play out exactly as written by Shakespeare.

Related to that is another game design question about the balance between combat encounters and other activities. By nature, combat encounters are relatively straightforward from a story point of view. Once combat begins, the usual outcome is the players killing the monsters, and looting them. If you string many of such encounters together in a large dungeon, you can get a hack'n'slash adventure in which the story quickly becomes secondary. So I am always trying to not have more than two or three combat encounters in series, creating other events which necessitate more talking and less fighting, with more opportunities for the story to develop in different directions.

The big advantage and opportunity of tabletop role-playing compared to computer games is that the DM can add elements to the story on the fly. For example in this week's session of my D&D campaign I had prepared a clue leading to an alchemist in the alchemist's guild. But my players were reluctant to just enter that guild and confront the alchemist head on. So they devised a plan to find somebody in the town who they could trust and ask him about the guild. They proposed going to the temple of their god and ask the local high priest. The high priest told them that they could easily meet the guildmaster of the alchemist guild the next day at a banquet. Both the high priest and the guildmaster were invented by me on the spot, in response to the ideas of the players. The principle is to always say yes to the ideas of your players, and thus let them introduce new elements into your story. That way you can design a game that responds directly to the expressed wishes of your players.
Tobold's Blog



Online tools for Dungeons & Dragons
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 3 December 2014, 2:42 am
Before I started this blog I was writing a lot on the Magic the Gathering Online forums. Wizards of the Coast had contracted another company, Leaping Lizards, to create the MTGO software. The first version ran, but had issues. WotC then took over with in-house programmers, and things went rapidly downhill from there. Whether it was the Lizard's base program or the Wizards' update I can't say, but in any case Magic the Gathering Online never worked very well afterwards and never became such a big success as Blizzard's Hearthstone a decade later. (Apparently one has to have "izard" in the name to program an online trading card game).

Wizards of the Coast had acquired Dungeons & Dragons from TSR in 1997. TSR was well-known for having terrible online policies, going after people on Usenet that posted house rules and fan fiction in the early days of the internet. While WotC was a lot better with their Open Game License in 2000 allowing more participation of others in creating Dungeons & Dragons and exchanging stuff online, the D&D tools that WotC put online were always problematic. Frequently WotC promised great functionality and then barely delivered.

History is repeating itself with 5th edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Great online tools were promised, and then WotC kicked out he company developing those tools. Apparently the software developers and WotC had very different ideas on how to handle copyright and intellectual property.

I think games like Dungeons & Dragons have fundamental problems in their business model which makes taking them online difficult. There are unresolved issues between how WotC *thinks* their business works and how it really works. The business model on paper is that WotC sells rulebooks, adventures, and various source materials that players buy to play Dungeons & Dragons. The reality is more akin to that of a Free2Play game: Many people play Dungeons & Dragons for absolutely free. You don't even need a Player's Handbook to play D&D, you can borrow one from the player next to you, or use a photocopy. On the other side of the equation are "whales" like me, who bought every single 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons book (in my case even in two languages). Take that online and the clash between model and reality becomes evident: Online you *can* force every player to pay for a "Player's Handbook" or equivalent. Should you? I think that an online version of D&D in which every player is forced to pay non-trivial sums of money wouldn't work.

In addition to that WotC has a nice business of publishing official adventures, optional rules, and other game materials. And not all of that material is of really high quality. There are some gems, but there is a lot of rather average stuff. If you create a great online platform on which players can exchange their self-made adventures and game materials for free, a lot of that material will turn out to be better than the official fare.

In my opinion WotC is making an error to resist this online sharing culture. I believe a good online platform could draw a lot more players into the hobby. And even if they could play online for free and get free materials from other players, a good number of people would want to buy stuff from WotC just because they love the game. I can think of many intelligent ways where a D&D online platform could attract a lot of free players and then convert a good number of them into paying customers for various options. If they don't put good tools to play tabletop Dungeons & Dragons online, sooner or later somebody else will create a better competitor product. Do they really want another Hearthstone?
Tobold's Blog



The Favorites of Selune - Skin Deep - Session 7
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 2 December 2014, 4:03 am
In the previous session the Favorites of Selune managed to reverse their transformation into svirfneblin, after liberating a magical spring from a beholder. So after two sessions of almost constant fighting, this session went without combat. The heroes returned to the king of the svirfneblin, Diamond Quirrit, who had a proposition for them: As the svirfneblin were peaceful, they didn't understand why the humans of the Duchy of Faywyr and the town of Plumton were so hostile and afraid of the "Underdark menace". With the murder of Belina and the transformation of the adventurers into svirfneblin it was obvious that some sinister forces were behind all this, and as Quirrit knew that the threat didn't come from the svirfneblin, he was sure that somebody from the Duchy must be responsible. So he proposed to the Favorites of Selune to act as his ambassadors to go to Plumton and negotiate peace and trade between the svirfneblin and the humans. They would be under diplomatic immunity and could at the same time do the negotiations and inquire discreetly who was behind their transformation and the murder.

So the Favorites of Selune set off with a mule loaded with salt, which is rare in Plumton, as present to Duke Ruwan. They carried a big official diplomatic banner and official letters of appointment, which should guarantee them diplomatic immunity and ambassador status. On the way they passed by the druid who had helped them find the magical source. Some hilarity ensued when they remembered that the druid had asked them to plug the underground leak of that source and restore the magical spring for his forest, and they had just plain forgot about that. Well, maybe next time. :)

Arriving at Plumton with their diplomatic banner they had no problems being recognized as official ambassadors. The town hastily organized a welcome committee, and treated them with all honors. They were led to the palace of Duke Ruwan, who acknowledged their ambassador status and named his son, Prince Ular, as chief negotiator. A series of negotiations on peace and trade were organized, as well as leisure activities like cocktails and state banquets, starting the next day. They were offered accommodations at the palace, but preferred to return to their old rooms at the Mad Cow tavern. During the official welcoming meeting and introductions at the palace the sorceress of the group started flirting with one of negotiators of the Duchy, the minister of defense. As Prince Ular was chief negotiator, and commander of the guard, the defense minister was pushed into secondary importance in these negotiations, and thus looked vulnerable. We did an opposed ability check to see how that would work out, and the minister was thrilled by the attention of the attractive young sorceress.

Back at the Mad Cow tavern the Favorites of Selune tried to find out what happened since. The "murdered" tavern wench Belina had been resurrected at the prince's order, and was now his exclusive mistress, not working for the "seamstresses' guild" any more. But unfortunately she didn't see who killed her, having been woken up by a needle prick in her sleep and died of poison before she could see anything. The investigations into her murder had stalled, and most people blamed the "Underdark menace". The innkeeper Falgrim, who was the only one having seen the group in their svirfneblin form, hadn't reported the incident to the authorities, as the group had escaped through his secret smuggling tunnel and Falgrim didn't want the authorities to find that one. So he was somewhat puzzled by the disappearance of the adventurers and the appearance of the svirfneblin in his inn. The adventurers just told him that they were as puzzled as he was, and pretended to have gone to bed in the inn and awoken outside the city. The gate guard, Achgar, was spreading the rumor that the adventurers certainly had been diplomats all the time, and had just entered the city incognito for their first visit.

The group still had in their possession the bellows with residue of a grey-black powder which they had found on the night of their transformation. While their wasn't enough powder left to transform anything, they suspected that it was this powder which has caused them to turn into svirfneblin. So they had two paths of inquiry: They knew the leatherworker Master Dynrod who had made the bellows from a previous encounter. And they suspected that some alchemist from the town's alchemists guild was responsible for creating the transformation powder. But in their usual habit to making simple things more complicated, the players did not want to approach these lines of inquiry directly. Instead they went to the Temple of Selune and asked about the alchemists. They found that the guild master of the alchemists would be present the next day at the state banquet in their honor, and the high priest of Selune offered to introduce them. At this point it was getting late both in game and in real life, and we ended the session. 
Tobold's Blog



Being played
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 1 December 2014, 3:17 am
I once played a game
Or should I say
It once played me
(with apologies to The Beatles)

This weekend I played Bioshock Infinite from start to finish. Only that I am not so sure that "play" is the right verb for this game. It felt more like "follow". If a game is a series of interesting decisions, Bioshock Infinite isn't a game. There aren't any decisions to take, everything is strictly linear. And when you get asked to make a decision (bird brooch or cage brooch?) it turns out to not affect anything but visuals. Even the first Bioshock had more relevant decisions.

This being a shooter one would assume that there are at least the usual decisions to take that generic shooters have: What weapons to carry, how to manage health and ammo, how to overcome enemies. But even there Bioshock Infinite manages to make your decisions not matter: You can't carry more than two weapons, and the weapon you need will be conveniently placed at the start of the encounter where you need it. No need to lug a sniper rifle around, a sniper rifle will be provided to you at any location where using a sniper rifle makes sense, and so on. You don't need to manage health and ammo, because your companion will create them out of thin air whenever you risk running low. And overcoming the enemies is just a matter of time, because if you beat half of them and die, you'll be revived, but the dead enemies stay dead, making it just a matter of time until you win.

Now I am not a literary critic. Personally I don't like the multiverse narrative device, because it is something of a cop out. But I did like the alternative history 1912 setting, and found Columbia a more interesting place than Rapture. Nevertheless in the end I felt I had watched a 2-hour movie being stretched out to 20 hours, with my participation being only perfunctory. Bioshock Infinite *is* it's story, the player isn't really relevant to the proceedings. Needless to say that I don't feel like starting over to try some other weapons or vigours.

I can see the interest of such a "game" for somebody playing a shooter for the very first time and needing all that hand-holding. But I wished this was done with some sort of optional switch, "hand-holding mode on", giving the more experienced players more weapons to carry around and more freedom to do things on his own. Overall Bioshock Infinite left me rather unsatisfied. It is neither an efficient way to tell a story, nor a satisfying gameplay experience. Good that I didn't pay full price for this.
Tobold's Blog



Only 33% rebate? No thanks!
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 29 November 2014, 6:56 am
There is currently a big Steam sale going on. So I checked my Steam wishlist which games I could pick up for cheap. And I noticed that I automatically skipped over all sales that weren't at least 50%. Games that were on my wishlist and which had 33% rebate I just skipped over. You could say that is rather blasé from me. But then again I had cases where the same game later in the same sale had a bigger rebate. And there is always the next sale, and the older a game gets, the more it gets discounted.

How about you? Do you still buy full price games? How much does Steam have to discount a game you want for you to actually buy it?
Tobold's Blog



Only 5% of my neighbors are convicted criminals
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 26 November 2014, 2:28 am
Would you boast about only 5% of your neighbors being convicted criminals? Probably not. In fact such a rate of criminal behavior in your community would probably be enough to lower house prices and see many people packing. So I agree with Tremayne that it is somewhat curious that League of Legends is proud that 95% of their players haven't received official disciplinary action last year. Not only is 5% of people that are behaving so badly that they get various forms of bans far too much, but it also is indicative of a far greater number of jerks who simply aren't caught, or who behave badly but just under the degree that gets banned.

When the UK last month announced a new law giving 2 years of prison to internet trolls, people joked that their jails would be full after half an hour of League of Legends. LoL has become the poster child of games with a toxic community. And I wonder why that is so. I don't believe that it is related to the genre. Regardless of whether Blizzard's new Heroes of the Storm brings anything new to the genre, the one thing you can be sure about is that the community will be better policed and less toxic.

So why do you think League of Legends stands out for bad online behavior? And what could be done about it?
Tobold's Blog



Dungeons & Dragons edition 4.5
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 25 November 2014, 5:01 am
Disclaimer: The title is a joke and a deliberate exaggeration.

My current 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons campaign is scheduled to end soon, after running for 3 years. I am planning on a big, new campaign which will also be basically 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons, with some modifications from 5th edition, which is why I call it my 4.5E campaign. But maybe we might first run a few session of the 5E starter box, just to give everybody the chance of an informed view of which edition is most suitable for our group.

A real D&D 4.5 taking a 50-50 mix of the best of the two editions in my opinion isn't possible. 4th edition Dungeons & Dragons and 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons are largely incompatible where combat and stats are concerned. 4th edition has more levels, and your various numbers (e.g. attack and defense stats) go up by a lot. From level 1 to max level in 4E your attack goes up by AT LEAST +15, which is the "half your level" bonus, and not counting stat increases and the assumption that you'll wield magic weapons. The equivalent increase in attack for 5E is only +6; That is deliberate, a concept called "bounded accuracy", and makes it easier to use for example monsters over a wider range of levels. An orc in 5E doesn't become trivial just because you gained 3 levels. So 4E and 5E have an incompatibility based on very simple math, and you can't easily use combat rules or monsters or magic items from one system in the other. There is no such thing as a compromise, a real 4.5 edition which would be somewhere half way between the two. The math just doesn't allow it. Given this incompatibility, I believe that my group much prefers the more tactical combat of 4th edition over the somewhat more random combat of 5E, and so if I have to choose one combat system of the two, I believe that 4th edition for this specific group is the better choice.

That doesn't make 5E a bad system, and in fact it probably is a better system for new players. But one of the disadvantages of 4E is that it is hard to learn (and consequently slow if you haven't learned it well), and my group is already past that stage, so this isn't much of a problem for us any more. That brings me to another disadvantage of 4th edition, which is on the role-playing side. 4E rules are very focused on what your character does in tactical combat, and aren' all that explicit on the role-playing aspects between encounters. That is most visible in character creation, where a 4E character is a basically just a bunch of stats and powers, while a 5E character is far more fleshed out from the personality side.

Fortunately role-playing isn't based on math. Which makes the 5E personality creation system compatible with 4th edition. What I jokingly call D&D 4.5 thus is 4E with characters created using a modified 5E personality traits system. And I'm throwing in a bit of 13th Age in for good measure.

In 5th edition a character has personality traits, bonds, ideals, and flaws. For my system I'm taking the bonds, ideals, and flaws, and replace the generic 5E personality traits by 13th Age's "one unique thing". I am also using a system of backgrounds which will be a mix of 4E "themes" and 5E "backgrounds". And finally I am going to use the inspiration rules from 5E, giving players a bonus roll reward for good role-playing of their personality.

The "one unique thing" is a concept where you ask each player to come up with something which is more or less unique to them. That can range from classical fantasy "I'm the lost heir to the throne of XXX" to weird stuff like "I have a clockwork heart". The player can propose pretty much anything, but it is up to the DM to translate that into rules. For example if a player tried "I am invincible" as his unique thing, I would rule that he *believes* himself to be invincible, without actually having any immunity to damage. The one unique thing should add a lot of flavor to a character, but not really change his power level. I like this one unique thing concept more than I like the more generic personality traits of 5E (example from the starter set: "My flattery makes those I talk to feel wonderful and important. Also, I don't like to get dirty, and I won't be caught dead in unsuitable accommodations.").

For bonds I am slightly expanding the concept from what is described in the 5E rulebooks. It remains a description of what organization the character has a bond to, for example like the "houses" in Game of Thrones, or a location like a home town. But in the campaign I want to play there will also be moments where the players have to talk to connections, people they know, people who owe them a favor or whom their owe a favor. So I'm adding those connections to the bonds category, and that is something that can grow over the campaign.

The ideals and flaws concept I'm taking straight from the 5E rules. What does the character believe in? Where is he vulnerable or at least not perfect. The flaws are the one personality aspect which is the most likely to be rewarded with an inspiration bonus if role-played, because it doesn't come easy to everybody to play a flawed character. The inspiration rule is also straight from 5E: You can only have one inspiration bonus, and can't gain another until you used the one you have. Using the bonus means *in advance* of an important dice roll saying that you want to use your inspiration, and then roll two dice instead of one and take the better roll.

My planned "4.5E" campaign will be one with a big campaign story. That necessitates a certain amount of willingness by the players to follow the given story. But obviously I don't want to turn that into some sort of cinema in which the players are spectators. By encouraging them to freely choose different aspects of the personality of their characters I hope to get lots of interesting personal side stories, as well as adventure hooks. At least that's the theory, I'll have to see how that eventually works out.
Tobold's Blog



Innovation through core-shell design
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 24 November 2014, 1:54 am
I have in the past repeatedly talked about my general model for modern games: A core gameplay that is frequently repeated (e.g. combat), with a shell of other activities (e.g. quests, story) binding those core gameplay elements together. One of the interesting things of this model is that if you look at many different games, you'll notice that the core and the shell are not very strongly connected; you can switch out just one of them to get to a new game, while keeping the other identical. One example would be MMORPGs which generally work like World of Warcraft, but which substituted the WoW core combat by some sort of action combat.

That can lead to quite innovative games if you look far beyond typical game elements for a specific genre, and substitute either the core or the shell of a game by something from a very different genre. This weekend I played Rollers of the Realm, a game with a traditional fantasy shell in which the core combat gameplay has been replaced by a pinball game: Your characters are pinballs of different sizes and attributes. Your healer heals the flippers by bumping into mana, your knight damages enemies by bumping into them, your rogue deals more damage if he bumps into the enemy from behind, and so on. It is not a very huge game, I've completed it in 10 hours, but as it only costs 8 Euros ($10?) that is quite okay. At least it was a very new and unique gameplay experience, and we don't get very many of those any more these days.

Usually it is easier to take a game and replace the core gameplay. But some combinations of core and shell have become so traditional that switching to a different shell can also work. Another game I played this weekend is the somewhat mediocre Battle of Littledom, a fantasy game with core combat gameplay similar to the Final Fantasy series. But instead of a more traditional questing and character management shell, the devs used the shell gameplay from games like Puzzle & Dragons, where you collect characters, fuse them together to gain more levels, and evolve them into stronger characters. Puzzle & Dragons uses this shell with a core match-3 gameplay, but there are games that use the same shell for a trading card game (Elemental Kingdoms) core, or even a carnival coin dozer core (Dragon Coins).

I think there could be more innovative games with unusual combinations of already existing core and shell game elements. I'm still waiting for somebody to make my 10-year old Shandalar project come true, a MMORPG using trading cards for combat.
Tobold's Blog



The Ubisoft formula versus the Blizzard formula
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 21 November 2014, 4:02 am
This year there has been some discussion in gaming circles about the "Ubisoft formula" for making an open world game. It is basically a recipe that is shared by various Ubisoft games, from the Assassin's Creed series to Watch Dogs, and which has become so well-known that even open world games that aren't from Ubisoft, like Shadow of Mordor, have been shown to conform to that formula. Meanwhile a lot of pundits seemed somewhat confused about what to make of Blizzard's latest announcement of a new brand, Overwatch. Why is Blizzard making a multi-player shooter? Blizzard isn't know for making multi-player shooters, or even just shooters, so why Overwatch?

I do believe that Blizzard has a formula as well. And I would say that it is a much better formula than what Ubisoft has. While the Ubisoft formula allows you to churn out a large number of largely identical games with new coats of paints, the Blizzard formula leads a collection of very different games. Blizzard's formula is taking whatever genre is currently popular and then applying great craftsmanship to that genre, basically trying to make the best possible game of that genre.

That is the secret sauce that game companies making WoW clones for a decade never understood. World of Warcraft isn't successful because it is highly original or the first of its kind or has a specific set of features. World of Warcraft is successful (and currently growing by 3 million players again) because it took a known concept from games like Everquest or Dark Age of Camelot and simply perfected it. Everything just works in a Blizzard game, notwithstanding occasional errors of judgement like the Diablo 3 real-money AH. Blizzard removes barriers to entry and makes games more accessible for a larger audience. And as larger audience means larger income, they get filthy rich in the process.

The ability to look at existing games, find out what exactly makes them tick, find out what doesn't work, and produce a better version is what makes Blizzard so successful. It is the reason why Blizzard is the market leader in MMORPGs, and not for example SOE or Mythic. It is the reason why Blizzard is the market leader in online trading card games, and not Wizards of the Coast. It is the reason why Blizzard is the market leader in real-time strategy games, and not Westwood Studios. And it is the reason why Riot Games should be nervous when Blizzard makes a MOBA, and Valve should be nervous when Blizzard makes a multi-player shooter. It is extremely likely that the Blizzard version of any game is better than the original, because it is SET OUT to be better than the original. Blizzard isn't making "me too" games, they are in the business of finding and polishing raw diamonds.

And who knows, maybe one day Blizzard will make an open-world game that makes Ubisoft look like amateurs.
Tobold's Blog



State of the blog address
Posted by Tobold's Blog [HTML][XML][PERM][FULL] on 19 November 2014, 3:29 am
This used to be "Tobold's MMORPG Blog", but I dropped the "MMORPG" a good while ago. Nevertheless until this year I still considered myself somewhat as a MMORPG player. I don't know if it is just me or the state of the genre, but this year made me lose interest in MMORPGs in a big way. I found the Elder Scrolls Online (played beta) and Wildstar (played beta and release) hugely disappointing. Blizzard sent me 7 free days of WoW earlier this month, before WoD came out, I logged into the game, and found my guild screen saying that on a Saturday night I was the only character out of 586 guildies logged in. That killed the last bit of interest I had in maybe buying the expansion, so this will be the first WoW expansion I'm giving a miss. There is currently no MMORPG out or announced that I currently would want to play. When Wildstar today sent me 7 free days to explore their new "epic, multi-part story designed specifically for solo players", I just snickered and ignored the mail. I'm out!

Now as you might have noticed I am sometimes writing about Dungeons & Dragons. But I wouldn't consider this to be D&D or tabletop role-playing blog either. I mean, MMORPG bloggers are weird, but pen & paper RPG bloggers are a completely different league of weird. I can barely read some of those blogs, especially the so-called OSR blogs. There are endless arguments about how tabletop RPG rules should be "realistic simulations". And not just of real world things like swords and armor. No, people seriously discuss the "realism" of elven racial stats or wizard fireballs. Very few people care about things like whether the game mechanics work or are balanced. Instead most people waste endless time with pseudo-scientific arguments about why their preferred class would be much more realistic if it was a lot more powerful. Not a community I really want to engage in discussion with.

I still play a lot of other games, both on the iPad and on the PC. But I don't always feel the need to write about them. Many modern games, especially the so-called triple-A variety, have perfected the game experience to something almost cinematic. And it is the same cinematic experience for everybody. Even in a purportedly "open world" game the experience that two different players have of the game is very similar. Everything is broken down into very small, easily manageable tasks. When "Le Morte d'Arthur" was written, a "quest" was something you'd expected to last most of your life. Today a quest is "walk 10 meters and click on something, then come back for your reward". In the right situation that can be enjoyable to play, but it isn't really something to write about.

I am not a paid journalist or writer with a certain number of words to write for a certain deadline. I write when I have something to say. And right now I don't have much to say. So don't be surprised if this blog isn't updated daily any more. 
Tobold's Blog



<< Newer Entries · · Older Entries >>

Show: [ALL] [NEWS] [BLOGS] [PODCASTS]

Updated Today:
A Green Mushroom [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
DDOcast [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Heartless Gamer [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Massively [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Moorgard.com [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Reign of Gaming [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Zen of Design [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Updated this Week:
GWJ Conference Call [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Lineage II [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Low Elo [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
MMORPG.COM News [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Player Versus Developer [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
The Old Republic News from Bioware [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Welshtroll [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Write the Game [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Updated this Month:
Bioware TOR Dev Blog [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Blue Kae [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Morphisat's Blog [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Mystic Worlds [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
No Prisoners, No Mercy [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Ogrebear's Thoughts [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Raph Koster [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Terra Nova [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Troll Racials are Overpowered [HTML] [XML] [FULL]
Wolfshead Online [HTML] [XML] [FULL]