Forcing players to grind for experience points to unlock things is one of the most overused of system mechanics right now, and it's driving me nuts. After spending about a month away from The Last of Us, I went into Factions mode, and found myself completely outclassed; less so in player skill, than in weapon and character skill availability. Call of Duty, while popular, is, in my opinion, the biggest offender here.
On its surface, it seems harmless enough; give players a reason to continue playing your game, and the franchise will still be in the forefront of their minds when it's time for the inevitable sequel announcement. The real problems stem from how the system is utilized/implemented, and how that affects gameplay.
Lack of Use in Matchmaking
Not allowing late adopters or weaker players to play amongst others of a similar skill and equipment set to learn the ropes with each other, if available, and placing skilled players in matches that they can win with ease is a terrible way to go about keeping players interested in your game. The statistics are being collected, players are bragging about their kill to death ratio, and you have the players' levels and accumulated experience points at your fingertips. Put it to use.
The Skill Gap Deepens
Better weapons, and better perks/skills/traits don't make you play any better, however, they do tend to increase the returns gained from your skill level. If there's a skill available that increases your overall damage by 5%, then it can be assumed that 5% more of your close calls, or near kills will end in your favor. Add in a weapon that does 8% more, and suddenly some of the situations in which you were previously completely outclassed start to turn in your favor.
With the primary methods of gaining XP stemming from completing objectives, such as earning a kill in a deathmatch game, those who are more skilled gain more XP than the weaker players or late adopters, and are rewarded with even more dominant gear, causing them to perform better, and gain even more XP. This snowballs into nigh unwinnable situations fairly quickly, especially early in a game's lifecycle, until the skilled players hit the experience cap, and enough time passes for the others to catch up and re-level the playing field. It's a standard case slippery slope problem.
Why is This Even Needed?
The biggest counter-argument I can think of to this system lies with some of the all-time classic FPS titles. With both Quake and Counter-Strike, everything was available to everyone, without forcing them to play a few hundred twenty minute matches, and those are two of the longest lasting and most played games of all time. While I think this system works well in free to play titles(for the developer and publisher, not so much the end user) as a way to entice players into microtransaction land, when there is no feasible workaround for the grind, it starts to get in the way of actually enjoying the game with everything it contains.
The broader implications of this system is what worries me the most, however. If this continues to grow, and starts shifting into other genres outside of the free-to-play space, the multiplayer of most games will become more of a chore than something of enjoyment. It will start to feel much like waiting for a patch does now, however, that patch will only come if you can accrue 800 hours played, and it will only apply to you. If Blizzard releases Starcraft 3 in 2015, with ridiculous restrictions like these, I don't think it will have the popularity that Starcraft 2 does today. If I go to play with Zerg online, and the game tells me that I haven't yet completed 500 matches, and gotten to 25th rank in Silver Division, so I'm not allowed to use Hydralisks, I'm uninstalling the game, and I'm sure many others would as well. Why accept it in FPS titles, and continue to pour money into the franchise that championed this method?
- Mike "Tsaikotyk" Kelly
No comments:
Post a Comment