Brian Ayavaron Ross wrote:
> ********************************************************************
> * REPOST
> *
> * Original Poster: Brian "Ayavaron" Ross
> * ayavaron@gmail.com
> *
> * 11/20/2005 11:09 AM
> *
> ********************************************************************
> A topic that always came to mind to me when I played games was
> value. I don't like it when I pay $50 for a game only to find that
> I couldn't get more than an hour into it due to insurmountable
> difficulty. When I pay full price for a game, I expect to be allowed
> to see all of the game regardless of my skill. It seems unfair that
> when I pay $50 for a game, I am only privy to 10% of the game.
>
> I think this is a problem with MMORPGs too. MMORPGs are more
> expensive than normal games because there is the additional
> subscription fee beyond the initial price of the purchase.
>
> But MMORPGs also do a lot to lock off people of lower skill. I've
> heard people mention it within this mailing list even. They talk
> about locking off content to lower level players as a way to help
> prevent quest vandalism and such. But it seems unfair as they're
> paying the same price as everyone else.
>
> But I've hared some MMORPGs don't really start until you're at level
> XX (Usually 20). What if someone doesn't get to level 20 in the
> first month and then decides to quit? That person will have invested
> $65 into something that they didn't get to enjoy.
>
> So I wonder now, do other people see this as a problem? Some games
> are designed around the idea of avoiding this type of thing (CoH and
> WoW) but why should some games require work before you can start
> enjoying them. That just isn't cool.
>
> Do other people have anything to say on the subject?
>
>
>
>
Traditionally content has been gated by level in one way or another,
providing both a sense of achievement at reaching that level and
setting a rate at which content can be consumed or a limit on how
fast it can be consumed
by players.
The first levels are really to teach you how to play, and
difficulty of playing the game doesn't usually change that much
as you go up in levels and on through the gate that new level
allows you to pass.
There have been tendencies though to tune the difficulty level to the
power gamer who excells in the game and spends the most time playing
and has the most friends to help, basically setting the rate at which
content can be consumed (seen and experienced) via difficulty to that
of the fastest and hungriest power consumer. We've seen it in games
requiring power guilds and such just to survive large portions of the
content in games.
When taken too far it is a problem, where you want that line drawn
depends on the player. An MMOG where all players have seen and
experienced all the content in under a month though is probably
not going to last long.
Some believe a game should be able to be played solo, others believe
that an MMOG you can play through solo might as well be an offline
game. I believe there's a balance, and games like WOW are trying to
find it.
I also dislike the dilemna of needing to tune a game to the power
players, as in a level based system you always have to keep adding
higher and higher levels and it seems basically flawed. I believe
it could be avoided by avoiding the level based system and using
alternate ways of controlling content consumption, or just not
controlling it at all.
Then again I also believe that some time in the not too distant future
someone will come up with tools good enough that episodic content can
be added at will and the games become more of a weekly fantasy TV series
players get to be involved in and interact with. The systems are just
too primitive for that type of thing today.
MMOG's are designed for long term play though, as in months or years to
see all the content. They are definately not going to ever be designed
with the player seeing and doing all the content in their free month
period as a goal. Not ever gonna happen.