A couple weeks ago, I had a post that asked the question is it worth spending the time on clarity at the cost of complexity and depth? Path of Exile was the example I used for a game that values complexity so much that it allows new players to reach a fail state for their characters. Grinding Gear Games, Path's publisher, assumes you have a base of knowledge, but what games can you learn from but that lose your interest?
I think that the opposite problem exists for some games. That they focus so much on clarity and getting new players into the game that they have solved-states. A solved-state is when you have nothing left to explore. If a game is shallow enough, then figuring out the optimal strategy is easy. Once people have figured out the best thing to be doing a game loses a lot of the mystery. You know the thing you should be doing. There are people that intentionally do something sub-optimal just to prove that they can, but that is rather abnormal. A solved state is as much a problem as a failed state. It makes your turn over very high. That works for a game that has some up-front cost, e.g. the traditional AAA releases, but more and more games aim to have a living model where content is developed continuously. It is vital to games to be able to retain their playerbase and solved states lead to less invested players, less interest, and a game's eventual death.
To keep the comparisons consistent, lets take Magic and Diablo 3. Both games spend a pretty inordinate amount of time walking new players through the early game. Diablo 3 has way more difficulty modes than it realistically needs, and the developers of Magic really want new players to play sealed before they do anything else. They both have solid mid-games with Diablo 3's gearing process and Magic's emphasis on Standard and then Modern for professional events. However Diablo 3's end game is notoriously weak. This is not to say its non-existent, its just not satisfying. Between Diablo 3 and Reaper of Souls there was virtually no end game, and while Reaper was a huge upgrade over vanilla D3, it still doesn't even remotely compare to Path of Exile or the depth of other titles. Magic manages to have an incredible complexity to it even after you graduate from the heavily played formats. Casual formats abound, and Legacy and Vintage are virtually unsolvable formats.
D3 has the solve-state problem. They don't have a great retention rate, and that's because once you get to the end game you get bored, and that's the issue with a lack of complexity. If a game isn't deep enough then it loses its top end to other game.They are trying to develop a continual progression system but honestly once you get to the higher levels of gameplay the game breaks down. There aren't enough things to explore and the Greater Rift system is virtually the only thing to do except trying to get a Hellfire Amulet that's worth a damn. The lack of trading also stunts the community since commerce is what invariably makes people come together.Path of Exile has been growing by leaps and bounds because its feeding on the players that have grown dissatisfied by the end game of D3.
Now does this make D3 a bad game? Fuck no. Its sold millions of copies. Its got excellent gameplay, and a very viceral appeal. Its just cool. Its model of having a tight experience that you can play and get to the "end game" only takes a moderate amount of play time that feels good the whole way. You never feel lost as you are playing through that game and you can't fail in the long term. A game doesn't have to last forever, being the one thing that eats up all of your time. I personally like games that are on the deep end, but D3 is a great Action RPG for people that just want to play a few hours here or there.
No comments:
Post a Comment