Anatomy of a Legend

Now that we have gotten past my... uh, past... let's take apart a game, shall we? For my first essay, I have chosen to write about EverQuest II. This is not out of any desire to make my reader(s?) scream and throw things at their monitor. Instead, I've already heaped praise on this game, and now I want to tell you what's wrong with it. This essay will probably be two posts in length, so bear with me. If you're nice, maybe the second game I discuss will be World of Warcraft.

These essays will concentrate on the gaming experience, from environment to community, mechanics to bells and whistles. What I will not be delving into are frame rates and other technical matters. There are plenty of places on the internet where you can evaluate your computer for a given set of benchmarks; I feel no need to do so here.

Before we begin, however, a giant caveat is due:

Burtimus' Biases

We've all got them, and mine revolve largely around games and gaming. The purpose of discussing them in my case is that there are things that I like in an MMO, and things I do not. If you are not in agreement with me, you should know where my error lies. If you happen to see things as I do, this little list may provide you with a yardstick to evaluate future game efforts.

I am a role-player. To some, this means "care bear", an epithet arrogantly bestowed by those gamers who apparently can't roleplay. In real terms, it has specific meaning, though. First, the characters I create tend not to stick with efficient "builds" -- by which I refer to a race/sex/class/specialization combination designed for combat or support efficiency. Rather, I make character choices based on what I want the character to portray. Often this leads to combinations that, while interesting and perhaps even entertaining, fail to pwn in a pretty major way.

Second, the social aspect of the game is important. Due to my long history of tabletop roleplaying, I do not think that a single player playing a game in isolation (such as, say, Final Fantasy VII or Oblivion) can roleplay. It is a community effort, requiring two or more players to accomplish. So social dynamics, tools and effects play an important part in my gaming choices. This may include things like gestures (emotes), character moods, chat styles and channel controls, props, costumes and the like. Having a system where a fighter wears heavy armor to, say, a wedding seems to me to be not only boring, but socially awkward.

Third, the environment itself must be conducive to roleplay. There should be places where interesting scenes and discussions may be held, interesting lands, and a deep and engaging backstory. If we are to immerse ourselves in this game world, we should care about the game world. After all, it's hard to portray a Chicagoan if there is no such thing as Chicago. The more we know and can learn about our own races and cultures, and those of our companions, the greater our attraction to and interest in these characters. In fact, it is useful to think about your favorite television show. If all the hero of the show did was battle the enemy (whomever that may be), it would soon lose its luster and interest. On the other hand, exploring different facets of that character's life -- his friends, his family, his past -- the more we can connect with that character.

Finally, the community is of vital importance. This is independent of the social element in one regard, and that is that the social elements are built into the game; the community are the people who play it. All communities have their benefits and drawbacks, from acceptable behaviors to taboos. We all (I think) want to play with those who are helpful, friendly and willing to make the game experience enjoyable for everyone. Sadly, that is not always the case. Rivalry, trash-talking, flames, arrogance and asshattery are common, even in the best games (and those are only my characters). If at least the majority of players are pleasant, the game is greatly benefited.

Those are my biases. Let's begin this little post with what is wrong with EQ2.

The Fly in the Ointment

In previous posts, I waxed rhapsodic about all the things I enjoyed about EverQuest II. The time has come to tear it a new one. And, although I have what I believe to be a legitimate gripe, I can also see why it was done as it was. So we'll tear it a really small new one.

What I'm going to cover here related to the mechanics of the game. When you think about it, all games are to some degree a model of some kind of reality. It has internally consistent laws including gravitation, light being blocked by solid objects and so on. Some games have very advanced and intricate mechanics with lore to explain phenomena like magic or space flight, while others are quite simple and basic (i.e. gravity works so well here that you cannot jump). Often, the more complex and realistic the game mechanics are, the greater the learning curve with players as to how to use those mechanics (anyone who does not believe me should pick out a copy of Vanguard: Saga of Heroes -- what the hell, do it anyway).

My biggest concern about EQ2 is what has accurately been described as "dumbing down" the game mechanics. Some feel that this decision was made to cater to a less game-savvy audience. There may be some truth to that. Others claim it was done to draw in some of the World of Warcraft crowd, who are used to simplistic mechanics (so long as they are brightly colored). I can categorically dispute this point.

To illustrate, allow me to tell you about the crafting system for EQ2. When the game was first released, most artisans could take raw materials and forge them into components, which could then be assembled into a finished product such as a sword, a suit of armor, a meal or a table for one's home. The catch was that for many items, no one crafter could make all the necessary components. An armorer, for example, might need to collaborate with a leatherworker for straps or a tailor for padding. The frustration that one might experience is understandable.

On the other hand, this created a community among artisans. Crafters would seek each other out to collaborate on making goods, resources were shared and the prices of goods more regulated (the greater the number of hands involved, the lower the overall profitability OR the greater the value of the finished item). Ultimately, though, fewer people got involved in crafting and those who were began dropping out if it due to its complexity. Clearly, this is not a good outcome for the game.

The first revamp of the crafting system allowed for individual artisans to build all their own components as well as assembling the final item. Of course, your crafter needed to get additional training in the form of manuals from trainers, but once done they could construct an item from its raw materials to its final product. Sadly, while the mechanics of the crafting community was left intact, this change rendered it superfluous. It was no longer necessary (and not very cost-effective) to collaborate.

Two problems arose from the new system within a short time. First, it was still relatively complicated. To build an item, one needed to assemble components, which were themselves built of raw materials. That's a fair number of steps. Further, the quality of the final product depended largely on the quality of the primary component. Statistically speaking, this limited the number of pristine final products. Secondly, the entire point of using a middle stage (components) was to stimulate collaboration. If there is no collaboration, why have the middle step?

This leads us to the final evolutionary stage. To craft a standard item in EverQuest II, the artisan collects all the necessary raw materials, goes to his crafting station and assembles the final product. Just like that. Now, there are some bells and whistles to actually assemble the thing, but in a nutshell, that's that. There is no reason (nor any way) for artisans to work together, and large numbers of items can and are put together all the time (often to provide needed experience for the artisan to advance his craft). So crafted items are generally very inexpensive, depending upon the vagaries of the market.

Next time we'll look at some of the strong points of EQ2, from the standpoint of my so-called biases. Thank you for reading.