Post by Morreion on Apr 2, 2010 9:22:06 GMT -5
Driving Force Behind MMOs (Keen and Graev's Gaming Blog)
An interesting and useful approach.
A blend of economic and conquest would seem to be a solid recipe. The gear approach can be fun but I don't know how sustainable it is for my tastes.
While sitting in my Calculus and Public Speaking classes the other day I was, of course, continuing to design my MMORPG. I was thinking about what can be classified as the ‘driving force’ behind certain games — what keeps those games going and what gives players the purpose for playing the game, as dictated by the design and the central focus of the game (regardless of why you in particular may play). I went through just about every major title ever released in North America during the past 12 years and I’ve identified only three main driving forces central to all of them. A game is either: Economically driven, Gear driven, or Conquest driven.
World of Warcraft is clearly a gear driven game. Dark Age of Camelot (pre-ToA) was a Conquest driven game. SWG (pre-CU/NGE) was an Economically driven game. You’ll find some games that combine two of these forces into a hybrid, such as EVE, but ultimately one will dominate over the other (I haven’t played EVE enough to tell, but if I had to guess I would say it’s Economically driven.)
Which is better? Honestly? None of them can be called better than the other. Based purely on success, all of these games are/were great games and their respective models worked. The problem with the driving forces though are that if you try to mix certain game types with a certain wrong driving force, then you’re going to cause a problem. We saw this with WAR when it tried to mixed a Conquest with a Gear. It didn’t work.
World of Warcraft is clearly a gear driven game. Dark Age of Camelot (pre-ToA) was a Conquest driven game. SWG (pre-CU/NGE) was an Economically driven game. You’ll find some games that combine two of these forces into a hybrid, such as EVE, but ultimately one will dominate over the other (I haven’t played EVE enough to tell, but if I had to guess I would say it’s Economically driven.)
Which is better? Honestly? None of them can be called better than the other. Based purely on success, all of these games are/were great games and their respective models worked. The problem with the driving forces though are that if you try to mix certain game types with a certain wrong driving force, then you’re going to cause a problem. We saw this with WAR when it tried to mixed a Conquest with a Gear. It didn’t work.
An interesting and useful approach.
Virtual worlds, which we’ve really gotten away from these days, are more easily attained when the economy is the central focus. Players tend to become more involved with each other, communities form, and then the game is handed off to the players to control rather than it being dictated by content. When players reach the point in my game where they’ve established an economy then they’ll realize how the conquest part fits into it all. The area of the world that is contested (similar to DAOC’s old frontiers) is broken up into three parts (1 for each realm). Inside these contested areas will be bonuses akin to what the relics could give. These bonuses will be economical in nature.
A blend of economic and conquest would seem to be a solid recipe. The gear approach can be fun but I don't know how sustainable it is for my tastes.
