Lots of folk are annoyed at Bioware’s revelation of “companion characters” in the upcoming Star Wars MMORPG, whereby “companion characters” are NPC group-members that can stand-in when groups can’t find other players to fill certain roles, such as healers and tanks. Keen was one of the first to vocalize his aggression:
Why don’t you just make it a single player game? I do not understand this mentality of making a MMO and then taking all these steps and putting in all these systems to make it anything but a multiplayer experience. What is the point? Make it another Bioware RPG and stop jerking us around by jumping onto the “We’re a MMO!” bandwagon.
Looks like Keen, like many others, doesn’t get that not every MMOG player wants to group and raid, which has become a common sentiment among MMOG bloggers, lately. Whereas before World of Warcraft (WoW), lots of people wanted a more solo-able experience, the exact opposite is true now among “real” gamers. But these folks need to realize that MMOGs are going to cater to both camps, whether everyone likes it or not. The fact is, MMOGs are a pretty cheap form of entertainment compared to blowing through multiple 20-hour single-player games every month, so for “hardcore” gamers who want single-player experiences, the MMOG is a valid outlet. This is particularly true when one considers factors that support the single-player experience yet is based on the player populace at large, such as player-made goods, auction houses, et al.
If anything, NPC party members will be a good thing because it will somewhat allow more casual gamers to participate in group contact that they might otherwise be shut out of. No more stalling public groups because the baby is crying, or because mom and dad called your tank to the dinner table. The more pertinent issue at hand is the effectiveness of NPC party members, and this is where careful play balancing needs to take place. In other words, assuming that NPC party members could be written to be as intelligent as players as far as respective group roles are concerned, they shouldn’t. A good player tank should always be better than an NPC tank, whereas the NPC tank should probably be better than a poor tank. This will force poor players to up their game or get out, and as long as certain encounters are written to require good players, then mostly NPC parties won’t be able to succeed in top-rate instances anyway, so the “hardcore” can still have their cake.
Another bonus to this is that even at low levels, Bioware can require players to participate in groups. This way, from the get-go, players will learn how to play their class in a group environment, rather than having to learn end-game mechanics such as threat, aggro, healing, et al upon reaching end-game. It’s a good idea that more MMOG developers should explore, rather than shy away from because of a thousand angry Keens.
Similar Posts:
- Blizzard should thank Mythic. – It’s an accepted fact that competition among companies is good for consumers, as it gives them more…
- Level design trumps PUG elitism. – When Keen complained about public five-man groups in World of Warcraft (WoW) being ultra-selective …
- How Blizzard can fund a longer leveling game. – Earlier this month, syncaine at Hardcore Casual suggested that because World of Warcraft (WoW) is a…
- Horde superiority. – A friend of mine once mused that players of World of Warcraft (WoW) who roll Horde characters are mo…
- Established IP = successful MMOG. – Let’s clarify that: in order for the next big massively multiplayer online game (MMOG) to become a r…
