One fascinating part about Everquest Next is its abandonment of the two-sided MMO model. It seems as if everyone starts out on the same side. The lore is such that one group of survivors of the dragon wars returns to their homeland, and they begin the long, arduous process of reclaiming their lands. Even the Dar kElves have been recreated as a somewhat-friendly faction of elite warriors, so there isn't two sides returning home - there is one.
From the panels we attended, it seems the EQ Next team wants to start everyone out as equals, and let your actions decide your fate. If you want to walk an evil path, you will choose to do that through your actions. You will find the evil factions, ally with them, perform quests for them, attack the good guy factions, and your choices will lead you down that path. It is a fascinating setup, and one eerily similar to SBRPG's sandbox mode of play, although we do assume there are factions in the game world that are both good and bad, we don't say you have to ally with them.
Note up until this point in MMO-land, most games have been bi-factional, when you create a character, they force you to pick a side. World of Warcraft's Horde vs. Alliance, Warhammer Online's Order vs. Chaos, SWKOTOR's Imperials and Rebels, and a bunch of other games where the sides really feel sort of arbitrary and forced upon the story (Rift, Guild Wars, etc). Here, you pick the side your character ends up on based on their actions - it is up to you.
It is an interesting setup, one I wish was used in World of Warcraft and other games, since there are some factions in each of those games that sit between the sides (Goblins, Pandaren, etc). A problem with WoW is that part of the design was to keep the two sides unique, if you saw a Tauren of any type, you could be sure it was Horde. With the new expansion and the Pandaren, that is not true anymore, and by the original design goals, this is a mistake. Wouldn't it be more interesting to let players form up battle lines along ideals they believe in, instead of artificial allegiances to some faction picked for them during character creation? If I want to be a warlike Human-hating Orc, let me join that faction; or if I support Thrall and his Alliance-supporting faction of peace, let me join them. It seems disingenuous to force all Horde down a narrow path just because the (non-existent) world PvP requires forced factioning. It's why the game seems so limiting and cold nowadays as well, there's simply no freedom.
I hope EQ Next forces game designers to think hard about factioning and forcing players into roles. Let me pick a race, and let me decide. If one race trends towards one way of thinking, make that an easier path (Orcs and war), but never limit me from choosing my path, or choosing it for me. This is one of those key design goals we had for SBRPG1, and it is reinforced for SBRPG2. You deserve to pick your character's fate, who they ally with, and what factions they support.
In a way, even games like Pathfinder and D&D4 force you into a role. With Pathfinder, there's an assumed Pathfinder Society membership implied; and with D&D4, the game puts everyone on the side of the good guys. These games were built with the MMO mold in mind, and it's an interesting choice. As a result, the factions trend towards the good guys, and the evil factions are relegated to monster status. You could never join them, nor expect these factions to have anything more than a simple, "bad guys of the next adventure" motivation.
Freedom, it's what makes games epic. Supporting it in the game's design matters a whole lot too.
No comments:
Post a Comment