heroes sounds interesting, but nothing like anything i'd ever want to play. i personally feel that in competitive multilayer, the curve of a players effectiveness should be almost entirely based on developing a players skill rather than granting them new attributes and abilities through any kind of level up/unlock system. the latter being a cheap (in regards to game design), destructive, pale alternative.
take company of heroes for example, i've probably put the hours into that game to compare with many upper level wow players, and the game gives me a rank to signify this. and for every few hours a wow player puts into gaining a level, through battles won or lost and accumulating numerical experience, counted by an in-game ticker - i've put a few hours in coh doing the same, except the experience i have gained is not virtually simulated, its entirely real. like a wow player, it's this experience that sets me apart from those fresh-off-the-install, but its experience i have organically accumulated. i can share, teach, discuss, argue and evaluate this experience with others, something impossible todo with ticker-based virtually simulated experience. its a richer, infinitely more rewarding type of participatory experience. gaining ability for yourself, rather than having it handed to you.
i increasingly feel that the idea of artificial experience is one that the industry should take strides to move away from, and seeing franchises from genres that have previously never been preoccupied which this simulated player growth take to it in an effort to grant depth and longevity to their otherwise shallow game, i see as a troubling sign.
this isnt directed squarely at heroes, i understand dice's angle going into this game which theyve been upfront with from the start. same with mmo's , the nature of these games going back to pen-and-paper, has always used numerical, simulated experience and 'leveling up' at its core. i just feel we have reached a point in the medium where we should be using the technology to create genuine opportunities for depth and player development, rather than what has become the accepted norm of bloated excess with the depth of a spoon and a new lick of paint.
take company of heroes for example, i've probably put the hours into that game to compare with many upper level wow players, and the game gives me a rank to signify this. and for every few hours a wow player puts into gaining a level, through battles won or lost and accumulating numerical experience, counted by an in-game ticker - i've put a few hours in coh doing the same, except the experience i have gained is not virtually simulated, its entirely real. like a wow player, it's this experience that sets me apart from those fresh-off-the-install, but its experience i have organically accumulated. i can share, teach, discuss, argue and evaluate this experience with others, something impossible todo with ticker-based virtually simulated experience. its a richer, infinitely more rewarding type of participatory experience. gaining ability for yourself, rather than having it handed to you.
i increasingly feel that the idea of artificial experience is one that the industry should take strides to move away from, and seeing franchises from genres that have previously never been preoccupied which this simulated player growth take to it in an effort to grant depth and longevity to their otherwise shallow game, i see as a troubling sign.
this isnt directed squarely at heroes, i understand dice's angle going into this game which theyve been upfront with from the start. same with mmo's , the nature of these games going back to pen-and-paper, has always used numerical, simulated experience and 'leveling up' at its core. i just feel we have reached a point in the medium where we should be using the technology to create genuine opportunities for depth and player development, rather than what has become the accepted norm of bloated excess with the depth of a spoon and a new lick of paint.
