Realism at What Cost?
June 17, 2008 – 11:57 am
It has been a while since I have posted an article. I won’t lie to you. I was playing the Enemy (Age of Conan). As an avid MMORPGer, I believe it’s best to see for yourself what new MMOs have to offer you as a player. I must admit the idea of a highly Player vs. Player oriented game did keep tugging at my inner PK (Player Killer). However, after a mere month, I have already set the game aside. There are many reasons as to why I ran screaming from all that is Conan, but this article isn’t about why I’m still shaking from my experience. This article is about realism.
Realistic MMORPGs are something that many gamers look for. Everquest 2 and Age of Conan are games that try to portray a realistic massively multi-player fantasy role playing game. Games like World of Warcraft and our beloved Warhammer Online are not realistic. They don’t even really attempt to be except by the standards of realism their lore enforces on them. Now I have been constantly bombarded with the complaint that Warhammer Online’s graphics look “childish”, “retarded”, “silly” or even “something my cat could have drawn.” No one can really deny that compared to Age of Conan or Everquest 2 the graphics for Warhammer Online do look a bit silly. On one hand you have a Guardian holding a perfectly formed shield made of wood and metal. On the other hand you have a Black Orc holding what appears to be someone’s door he tore off the hinges at some point that may or may not have a animals skull tied to it with twine (editor’s note: which is totally awesome!).
There is a problem I have with realistic MMORPGs. This problem lies in their ability to deal with the wants and needs of their players. In my opinion, non-realistic MMOs have the ability to deal with their player’s needs much easier for one simple reason: It doesn’t have to work in the real world. You want player mounts in a realistic world? Your going to need to find someway to get the mount onto the screen that isn’t ridiculous and your going to have to set up mounting/dismounting animations that make sense. Wait… shouldn’t you feed the mount as well if its living? However, in a non-realistic MMO, you spend a couple seconds blowing a whistle and… poof… you’re now on your mount. These games are suppose to be entertainment first and foremost. I, for one, do not play these games so that I can harp on the intricacies of the real world. I play these games to become lost in a new and different world.
You can keep your Realism. I will stick with the silly looking game that can roll with the punches because simply… its not real.
On a side note: Has anyone noticed that every single piece of WAR concept art has a virtually identical in game screen shot to go with it? You show me a realistic MMORPG with that.
-Bo
Related Posts (auto-generated)
- Chance to win a WAR beta key AND save sick kids…
- WAR on the Web
- Is WoW an unstoppable train?
- About
- Voice Chat in MMORPGs
10 Responses to “Realism at What Cost?”
You… you… TRAITOR! Da greenies would be ashamed of you! (Just kidding, good article!)
By Syp on Jun 17, 2008
Excellent write up. We play fantasy games to get away from the real world. We play fantasy games to get lost in it, to get absorbed. I for one am lost in the sick and twisted mind of Malus Darkblade.
I just wish I was in the beta…
By CyberVic on Jun 18, 2008
I just wanted to confirm: It wasn’t ME playing Age of Conan, it was Bo (he wrote the article). I have nothing against AoC but it holds less than zero interest for me.
@Cybervic - Yeah, I play fantasy RPG games to enjoy the fantasy element personally. There are plenty of other awesome games out there if I want realism.
By Snafzg on Jun 18, 2008
Little confused by your article. I too am anxiously awaiting WAR, and have ventured into AoC to pass the time before our beloved game arrives.
And while I also have been less than amazed by the game, for all the many areas that I see where this game fails, I don’t understand the one you pointed out.
You don’t like the game because there is a mount and dismount animation? It seems like that was all you were building up to.
Personally I see pros and cons to both graphic/world styles, but other than affecting the look of the game, it doesn’t affect my view of things any more than that. Where AoC fails is that the developers didn’t seem to choose one direction and stick with it. Where WAR is built inside out from the early conceptual phases onwards as a PvP, even better RvR world. AoC doesn’t seem to know what it wants to be. They’ve said that more than 60% of their player base is on PvP servers, yet there still is no PvP system in place? The minigames are horribly planned out, and no one plays them, and even City Sieges, their one huge selling point isn’t implemented yet.
By Rana on Jun 18, 2008
@Rana: Well the point of this article wasn’t to point out the flaws of AoC if you want that article I’ll be more then happy to write it. The example of the mounts was a very simple way to illustrate that making a game realistic adds complexity and complexity adds time and money.
For the one mount you have to waste time having animators make these relatively elaborate animations and spend valuable time working on how to make everything tied into the mount reliable. For the unrealistic approach the ways to implement the mount are virtually limitless. The whistle and poof concept would take WAY less time to implement then a fully realistic mounting procedure.
Image how many small things in an MMO have this same problem. They start to add up. All this time could have been spent of fixing REAL issues with the playability and balancing of the game as a whole. Realism is NOT a price I’m willing to pay if it takes time out of a developer making their game playable and enjoyable. Make my mount go POOF, instead of having no quest content for large portions of the game.
This was my point. Hopefully, I clarified it a little bit.
Keep the comments coming
(If this post is not up to par writing wise, it was written on a break at work and quickly)
By Bo on Jun 18, 2008
I’ve been playing AoC the last few days (I’ve had a week off between jobs) with the graphics cranked up to full, and it looks great which anyone will admit.
The area realism has been bothering me most in AoC is the fact that from a distance everyone looks the same despite the most elaborate character design screen I’ve ever seen built into the game.
Human is human, and when you see a human player running amongst a bunch of human mobs in the same direction, you have to look twice to pick out which is the NPC and which is the human controlled character that might decide to jump you as soon as they spot you.
With WarCraft or Warhammer, its far less of a problem. Orcs/elves/goblins etc keep it easy to identify one from another. No eyestrain needed, and the game remains fun. You immediatly know who the enemy is, even with the lower polygon count. AoC has me twitching and doing mouseovers on anything that moves just to be sure
By Knash on Jun 20, 2008
I’m with Knash on this one. Team Fortress 2 had a development video that talked about how hard they had worked to ensure that each class was distinct just based on their silhouette. The fact that WAR is doing the same thing bodes really well for massive RvR. Sure you might have different gear as you level, but the basic identifying features of your realm and class will remain so that other players can immediately assess who and what you are.
By Koroh on Jun 20, 2008
@Knash: It could also be that there is almost no armor variety in AoC. Most of the classes look exactly alike unless you get right up on them and decided to really look. At a quick glance there are really only 4 looks.
Robe w/ weapon (HoX, Necro, Demo)
Assassin “armor” (Assassin)
Armored person with a shield (DT, Guardian, ToS, PoM)
Armored person with 2 hander or MAYBE two weapons (Barb, Conq, Bear Shaman)
The only class you could pretty much instantly recognize was a transformed HoX.
Oh and I hope you like skirts and capri pants, because thats all your wearing from light armor to full plate.
By Bo on Jun 20, 2008