Back in the Olden Days, when we had to walk to school in the snow, uphill both ways, the only way to get awesome loot in WoW was to run Molten Core. If you didn't have 36+ friends that were all well-geared, attentive, and competent, your only chance at purples was world drops and auction housing. You could run UBRS or Strat or Scholo if you wanted to, but there wasn't really much reason; there were some nice pieces in there but gear in MC was far better. Yet you couldn't progress in MC but once a week, and you needed to be well-geared, attentive, and competent yourself.
Nowadays, loot is cake. All you need in 9 friends, and there's no trash to fight through so you don't even need a multi-hour commitment.
Better
Is the current system better? Well, what does 'better' mean? It's easier to get loot. You don't need the social structure now that was needed then. 10-mans are easier to organize than 40-mans, it's harder for a player to go AFK, it's easier to get into a guild that has 10 people that can raid on the same night at the same time, and more. The barrier to loot is lower, in that more people will be able to get this group together. Is that better?
You don't need to progress through MC then BWL then AQ20 to get to AQ40; now, run some heroics, build up some purples, then jump into a 10-man ToC group. Or, heck, some heroic 5-mans drop competitive purples. A new 10-man guild can move on to 10-man ToC fairly quickly, and then find a 25-man PUG. The time between hitting end-level and raiding the final dungeon is much lower. Is that better?
One of the reasons that initiation rituals remain in fraternities is that it makes admission to the group that much harder and stressful. We value that which was difficult to obtain. Downing Ragnaros was a serious effin task, especially before BWL was released. It was a badge of honor.
Where is that badge now? Is that relevant? Compared to 2005, nowadays many more people are seeing more content and improving their gear, without getting frustrated by organizational hurdles. Because more people get there, it's less exclusive.
Who Cares?
It doesn't seem to matter. If more people are getting more phat lewt, they're happier and having more fun. I might complain about more people reaching the "elite" end-game ranks -- but there's still a time factor. What distinguishes the top elite from the next group is when they achieved the rank, not if they got to that final boss.
I've talked to players doing 10-man normal ToC and they consider themselves up in the elite. They're very happy with their progression. They know they're not doing hard-mode, much less the 25-man version, but that doesn't seem to be a big deal. At least they're not stuck!
There were tons of players back in the first year of WoW that wanted to do MC, but couldn't, because they weren't in "the right guild." Even in that guild some players got left on the sidelines because their gear wasn't good enough. Now, those guys have somewhere to go. They're not stuck pugging MC and wiping on the first giant; they can do 5-man and 10-man content that continues to give them better loot.
Bias
I want to sit and bitch about how easy kids have it these days, but that just biases me against the current model. What makes a game fun is perceived mastery, and WoW has that.
The WoW end-game is loot acquisition, and as long as players are getting better loot, they are mastering the game.
Lessons
Progression is important. Really, that's it. Players like challenge but not because of the cost of failure. They want to succeed, and look back, and say "I overcame that." As long as players continue to progress, they'll have fun, be happy, and continue to pay.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Creating an Engine from Scratch
I've been coding since I was ten. That's nearly thirty years now. In that time I've worked on games ranging from simple Apple II fare to big-budget PC and console titles. I've also written a ton of applications and tools, on the PC and Mac and that old Apple II, too.
So I can create an engine from scratch if I want to. Do I want to?
Right now, the 2D RPG I'm working on is an XNA title. I'm not using an engine, tho I am using the XNA and .NET libraries. Coding up my own engine is not too bad, but there's still tons of little cruft that I have to code. I wrote a line-wrapping routine last night; the code that breaks up a string of text across multiple lines. It's perhaps the tenth time I've written such a routine.
It's the sort of thing that makes me wish I had used an engine, something that would give me those sorts of routines. I know how to write them and I've got old code laying about that I can crib from, but I still need to modify the code for the language (C#) and platform (XNA) du jour.
The downside to using an engine is learning it. I remember old Mac documentation, back in the pre-OS X eras. It was awesome. It took a long time to read (compared to today's documentation), but it was fucking stellar. Not just explanations of parameter values, but meaningful sample code (including error-checking) for nearly every use that a particular function had.
Today, most of the documentation and comments I see are like:
Engines are also often buggy; if you don't have source, you're just screwed. Wait six months for the next update and hope it fixes your problem. And being generic engines, they have a strange mix of too-much and too-little functionality. They don't do exactly what you want, but they can do a dozen things that are similar but still inappropriate for your specific needs. So it takes you days to figure out what it does, and then days trying to make it dance the way you need it to -- only to find out it doesn't do that. Then days more to figure out how to change your game spec so that your requirements can be met by the subset of functionality that the engine actually provides.
Using an engine is a great idea if it would take you too long to write it yourself, and if you can amortize the learning time across multiple projects (ie reusing the engine). Finding a great, easy-to-use, powerful, flexible, well-documented, and robust engine is a pain in the ass. Plus, generally impossible. There just aren't enough engines out there (and they're not profitable enough to develop) for them to be stellar products.
The big engines these days are cross-platform; PC, XBox, PS3, and Wii. There's some smaller engines that enjoy some niches, but I don't have high hopes for their lifetimes. Those big cross-platform engines can meet some of those important feature points, but (back when I was seriously looking at them, at game-industry day jobs) they weren't 100%. There's some smaller engines that have a lot of promise, too -- yet they're very niche.
Niche is good. If it does just what you need it to, a niche engine can be great. You don't waste time and money on features you won't use, and it's more likely that the engine does exactly what you need, does it well, and can document its small feature set well. Here, I'm thinking about engines for the iPhone, or 3D-shooter-specific engines, etc.
Which brings me back to that first point: if you lack the experience and talent to quickly develop an engine yourself, chances are, using a cumbersome, weak, inflexible, poorly-documented, and buggy engine will be your best choice. This is mostly cuz of the arcana associated with a new platform and the toolchain that goes with it. An engine isn't just line-wrapping code; it's a sound system, 3D rendering and scene graphs, advanced shaders, exporters for Max and Maya, input abstractions, UI widgets, plus tons more. Maybe even a scripting language and enough of a game shell that most of what you need to do is plug in some art assets, do a bit of scripting, and ship your product. If I was developing an XBLA or a PS3 or even a AAA PC title, I'd be using an engine.
There's a time balance between learning someone else's engine and writing the code you need yourself. The smaller the requirements you have for the engine, the more it makes sense to do it yourself. That's one reason why I'm writing my own engine. Plus, I get to reuse this engine for the next title I do. Plus, I'm not stuck with broken code. Plus, the engine does exactly what I need it to do.
It's still annoying to have to write line-wrapping code. Again.
So I can create an engine from scratch if I want to. Do I want to?
Right now, the 2D RPG I'm working on is an XNA title. I'm not using an engine, tho I am using the XNA and .NET libraries. Coding up my own engine is not too bad, but there's still tons of little cruft that I have to code. I wrote a line-wrapping routine last night; the code that breaks up a string of text across multiple lines. It's perhaps the tenth time I've written such a routine.
It's the sort of thing that makes me wish I had used an engine, something that would give me those sorts of routines. I know how to write them and I've got old code laying about that I can crib from, but I still need to modify the code for the language (C#) and platform (XNA) du jour.
The downside to using an engine is learning it. I remember old Mac documentation, back in the pre-OS X eras. It was awesome. It took a long time to read (compared to today's documentation), but it was fucking stellar. Not just explanations of parameter values, but meaningful sample code (including error-checking) for nearly every use that a particular function had.
Today, most of the documentation and comments I see are like:
int key; // the keywtf? That comment is noise. It's a waste of space and the time it takes me to look at that and then realize it contributes NOTHING.
Engines are also often buggy; if you don't have source, you're just screwed. Wait six months for the next update and hope it fixes your problem. And being generic engines, they have a strange mix of too-much and too-little functionality. They don't do exactly what you want, but they can do a dozen things that are similar but still inappropriate for your specific needs. So it takes you days to figure out what it does, and then days trying to make it dance the way you need it to -- only to find out it doesn't do that. Then days more to figure out how to change your game spec so that your requirements can be met by the subset of functionality that the engine actually provides.
Using an engine is a great idea if it would take you too long to write it yourself, and if you can amortize the learning time across multiple projects (ie reusing the engine). Finding a great, easy-to-use, powerful, flexible, well-documented, and robust engine is a pain in the ass. Plus, generally impossible. There just aren't enough engines out there (and they're not profitable enough to develop) for them to be stellar products.
The big engines these days are cross-platform; PC, XBox, PS3, and Wii. There's some smaller engines that enjoy some niches, but I don't have high hopes for their lifetimes. Those big cross-platform engines can meet some of those important feature points, but (back when I was seriously looking at them, at game-industry day jobs) they weren't 100%. There's some smaller engines that have a lot of promise, too -- yet they're very niche.
Niche is good. If it does just what you need it to, a niche engine can be great. You don't waste time and money on features you won't use, and it's more likely that the engine does exactly what you need, does it well, and can document its small feature set well. Here, I'm thinking about engines for the iPhone, or 3D-shooter-specific engines, etc.
Which brings me back to that first point: if you lack the experience and talent to quickly develop an engine yourself, chances are, using a cumbersome, weak, inflexible, poorly-documented, and buggy engine will be your best choice. This is mostly cuz of the arcana associated with a new platform and the toolchain that goes with it. An engine isn't just line-wrapping code; it's a sound system, 3D rendering and scene graphs, advanced shaders, exporters for Max and Maya, input abstractions, UI widgets, plus tons more. Maybe even a scripting language and enough of a game shell that most of what you need to do is plug in some art assets, do a bit of scripting, and ship your product. If I was developing an XBLA or a PS3 or even a AAA PC title, I'd be using an engine.
There's a time balance between learning someone else's engine and writing the code you need yourself. The smaller the requirements you have for the engine, the more it makes sense to do it yourself. That's one reason why I'm writing my own engine. Plus, I get to reuse this engine for the next title I do. Plus, I'm not stuck with broken code. Plus, the engine does exactly what I need it to do.
It's still annoying to have to write line-wrapping code. Again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)