Topic-icon Raph Koster: Action Combat In SWG if Made Today

  • Kazara
  • Kazara's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Community Manager
  • Community Manager
More
4 weeks 2 days ago #46070 by Kazara
Kazara created the topic: Raph Koster: Action Combat In SWG if Made Today
www.raphkoster.com/2017/07/18/mailbag-action-combat/

Snippet -

I’d do it with action combat, for the following reasons which boil down now to “because I actually can now”:

The audience is larger. Back when RPGs always trumped FPSes on retention, that was an issue because it meant that the audience you had left paying you monthly was too small to sustain the costs of live operation and recouping development costs. That’s no longer the case. Online FPSes can acquire huge audiences now, which means you can probably make back your investment and turn a profit.

Technology is way better now. At the time we did Star Wars Galaxies, there was exactly one persistent world large-scale game with FPS-style combat: Neocron. It didn’t do anything like the large-scale battles that we would need for Star Wars. Sony Online in fact pioneered that technology, but on a different project, Planetside. But it was still in early development at the time that we had to make this decision.

Players have built up expectations of gameplay for different affordances and simulations. And there are few few turn-based or timer-based models out there for guns. Virtually none in first-person environments. It would feel pretty alien to the average player to be in first person and not have FPS combat. This was one of the things that drove having overhead views in SWG.

Of course, using real-world skill as the basic premise of play undermines the RPG element in general. Role-playing games are about playing a role, and a big part of playing a role is being someone you cannot be. That means not relying on real world skill as much, or rather relying on a particular universal set of skills mostly based around being persistent.

Racist: [rey-sist] noun; 1. Someone who wins an argument against a Liberal. 2. Anyone who doesn't completely share Liberal ideology.

Please Log in to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.142 seconds

Login

Fringers Online

We have 54 guests and no members online