1
I am realizing that my interest in MWO is dropping.... and no, this is not a "buh bye, off to WORLDOFHAWKSIDE 2 3/4..." post. My interest in MWO is dropping because I realized that it is not a game yet, and I am beginning to wonder if it will ever be a game.
This may seem strange. MWO is not a game? But We are running along with our stompy mechs, shooting and stuff.
And yes, we are in our big stompy mechs. We enjoy the possibilities of configuration, the different methods of loadouts and the variety of stuff on the field.
But we are not playing a game. If you compare this to a classic tabletop, it´s easy to explain what is the difference between a game and a mechanic.
Right now.... we log on and roll dice. Our loadouts determine what these dice do and what this does to other peoples dice/mechs, but essentialy we are just using a game mechanic. And while it´s all cute and nice to run around and shoot stuff, it doesn´t offer much long-term motivation.
Allow me to elaborate this further. And to do this, let´s get back to the very roots of the multiplayer shooter hype that is still of importance today.
Counter Strike.
I am talking abaut CS here because MOST people have played it and understand what I´m talking abaut here.
CS showed in the early days of the multiplayer hype how hard it is do design a good game and what core assets it should contain. CS featured the core mechanics of a shooter. Weapons featured different ranges, damages, special abilities and ammunitions, There were no "superior" weapons per se, just different weapons... this also applies to MWO, where most of the weapons are useful. You could wear armor, add helmets, use special assets (grenades, shields) and other stuff in battle.
<p>But the battle wasn´t the game, it was just a mechanic that helped to resolve the game. I highly doubt that CS would have been such a long-term success if it wasn´t for these really smart designed game elements.
One of these elements was the concept of offensive and defensive teams in scenarios. Plant the bomb, save the hostage, kill the VIP. Sounds simple, but there is a lot more to it that you initially think. Sure, the scenarios could be won by killing the enemies...but there were twists.
For example: the time limit. When the time ran out, it wasn´t a draw... the time forced the offensive team to act. Whenever the terrorists had to plant a bomb of the CT had to save the hostages, TIME was an issue that dictated the action. Sure, time is also an issue at MWO´s Conquest, but I rarely see one team win by points+time, since the method of direct conflict is much easier.
An other example what made the game Counterstrike so good was the aspect of objectives. The hostage rescue, for example featured moving objectives. So you actually have to look for them, meaning that scouting and reconaissance had a meaning. The other smart move the creators of CS includes was the aspect of exclusivity. At CS, only one had the bomb, meaning that only he could archieve the objective. If he dropped it, the game evolved into picking up the bomb/defending it. if it was planted, the game enterd the next stage, effectively changing the offensive and defensive roles around, forcing the CT to attack and the T to defend an objective.
Another good implemantion of the aspect of exclusivity was the assasination game mode, where one team had to defend one specific teammate. But not only that, they had to move him from A to B, forcing them into an offensive role while having to defend a moving objective.
These were all really smart game elements. They finally gave the players something to use the mechanics on, forcing them to rethink the way they are using the mechanics and offering many opportunities for in-game evolution, often even in-battle evolution of the game at hand.
(CS ends here)
This is why I am disappointed with MWO at this moment. There is no game, we are just using the mechanics in a very simple way.
Shoot to do damage
Cool down to avoid heat
Recieve damage and be immobilized, crippled or destroyed
Step into cap zone to trigger cap
And yes: Capping is a mechanic, not a game. Conquest can be considered as a first attempt to create a game, but I think it failed at several aspects. Assault is no game at all, it´s a loose method of team deathmatch with a bailout possibility.
The problem: both modes have the same winning method and feature no scenario to follow. In both modes, it is the most efficient way to stack up and stay defensive, joining the teams ECM and AMS into an impenetrable wall. Luring the enemies to split up that your blob can shred them one by one. Or, in other words: you win by not playing a game at all and try to use the mechanics as best as you could. It offers little to no strategy and almost no in-battle evolution.
Development over time is another thing...
We log on, we shoot, we see our stats, we leave the game.
There is no possibility to evolve, to grow. It would be way more interesting if the game would give us the chance to restart a game, switching mechs after a round while staying in game, switching teams, etc.... Then, the player wouldn´t be so detatched from the game like he is now.
For example: Someone is using a cheesy build, totally ruling one round. But you get no chance to rethink that situation, learn how to counter this player and this playstyle, making it easier for him to dwell in the cheese and harder for everyone else to cope with the situation.
We know this from most shooters: Enemies got a lot of snipers, better use smoke grenades. Enemies are shotgunning rushers, better use heavy weapons and stay defensive. If you change your method to match the enemies, they will most likely change, too. Then, we have In-game evolution. The game offers the opportunity to choose a method by learning from other methods. This, however is greatly irrelevant at the moment at MWO. There IS just one mechanic, and this is "high DPS". This is giving heavy and assault mechs advantages and invites players to use one-dimensional builds like SRM-Cats and SRM-Stalkers. You face them, they grind you to dust, next game they might or might not be there.
This goes for cheats and exploits too. If someone has a lucky round, shredding enemies cockpits with AC/Gauss shots he might be a a cheater.... or just lucky. Cheaters an exploiters are easy to determine, because the cheat works all the time. Luck is random, you have it or you don´t. But because our rounds are just one-shot situations, there is no difference between cheaters and luckers.... which is protecting the cheaters.
In the sum of things, I am getting the Impression that MWO never had a game within at the first place. All the maps, all the content.... it´s just beefing up the mechanics more and more. So we´ll just keep on stomping. Some are bored and leave, but I am realizing that MWO has nothing to "hook" players with. There is no narrative objective like in Planetside, that gives the players the idea of participating in a bigger thing, there is no scenaio that forces people to act and think outside of the very narrow box of game mechanics....
So yes. My problem is: MWO is lacking a game in the first place.
Edited by Sidekick, 10 January 2013 - 04:05 AM.
