Breakfast Topic: Lessons from Single Player RPGs
by Daniel Whitcomb 
Dec 13th 2009 at 8:00AM
One thing I have been thinking about a lot as I play though, is comparing the game to WoW. Single player RPGs have a lot of things that MMOs haven't quite figured out how to duplicate yet. Storyline and lore is a big one. Blizzard's gotten a lot better at the whole idea with phased content and big events like the Wrathgate, but a single player RPG, with an audience of one, can shake up the status quo a lot easier.
You can start up a romance with that major NPC because hey, it's not like there's thousands of other player characters who would also like to sex up Jaina Proudmoore in a single player game. You can save the countryside from demons, and have it have a long term effect. Houses and people who you saved from destruction one play through may be gone the next because you failed to save them, and incurred permanent changes on the game world as a result. Again, phasing does somewhat address this idea, but in an MMO, it still creates an essentially homogeneous environment for all players.
One thing that I do love and that I do wonder if MMOs shouldn't try to duplicate is the in-depth conversation trees that a lot of single player RPGs use. Lately, Blizzard's been shunting a lot a of lore off into the comics and novels, and while I love a good novel, don't get me wrong, it does cause some disconnect with the approximately 9 million players who won't read said novel or comic book. Why should we be invested in characters who had so much of their character development completely off screen?
I'm a fan of show not tell, but all the same, being able to talk to more key lore NPCs and having a conversation tree that helps you get a grasp on their personality and beliefs and history would go a long way to making the game feel more immersive and getting everyone on a same page (or at least on the same book) lore-wise.
Of course, maybe single player RPGs could stand to learn a thing or two from MMOs. In Dragon Age and Mass Effect and other such single player RPGs, I'm struck at how generic all the armor usually is. There's exceptions, sure (mostly in plate armor), but I wouldn't mind a bit more variety. Then again, sometimes more variety just gets you the tacky fluorescent clown suits of the BC era, so hey, maybe it's not that bad.
Anyhow, I'm curious if anyone else has done their own comparisons of RPG types. What do you see as some of the key differences between MMOs and single player RPGs? What would you like to see either type do better, especially as it pertains to lessons learned from and by World of Warcraft?
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Virtual selves, Odds and ends, Breakfast Topics, Lore, RP
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Gamer am I Dec 13th 2009 8:09AM
This is probably a bit far-fetched, but I wish Blizzard would add phasing to every zone, so that each zone could have a before/after kind of thing going on where, once you solve all of its problems, the zone is permanently changed. It would make questing a lot more satisfying.
Barinthos Dec 13th 2009 8:15AM
All of Northrend is pretty much what you're asking for. As for OL? Well that place is pretty much dead and only there for the grind from 58 to 68
And the rest of Azeroth? Cataclysm.
Raze Dec 13th 2009 8:49AM
At Gamer am I: All of Northrend? Did we play the same game?
There's phasing in maybe... three or four places in the whole game, off the top of my head. Even places where it would be obvious, like escorting someone back to their camp, it isn't used. They hyped it up like it was going to be this huge thing that would change the game forever, except it really didn't.
Raze Dec 13th 2009 8:51AM
Whoops. Meant to reply to Barinthos with that last one. My bad.
Carver Dec 13th 2009 8:54AM
If by "all of Northrend" you mean Icecrown, then yeah. And ok, Storm Peaks has it with the Sons of Hodir, but most of the story progression there is done through flying. Care to remind me where else they use extensive phasing, because I can't think of anything else.
Halucid Dec 13th 2009 10:56AM
The problem with phasing an entire zone is that it effectively transforms the the game into a Massively SINGLEPLAYER game. In most cases, only you will be on a particular stage of the zones phase, and questing with bud would have to become a coordinated ordeal.
All though, I do agree it could be used more often on a strictly visual level. For instance, a small village that was once ransacked by furbolgs could be restored to its former charm after you've taken care of the problem.
Gamer am I Dec 13th 2009 10:57AM
@Halucid: My idea was more to phase the entire zone once you have solved all of its problems in order to avoid the problem you described above.
Greyhame Dec 13th 2009 1:20PM
With Cataclysm, they are adding the ability for you to party with someone in a different (presumably previous) phase of a zone and see what that person sees. So they know that the problem with phasing is that players don't like, and are fixing it while keeping the ability to phase zones.
Cowy Dec 13th 2009 4:27PM
I love phasing, but it does present a headache at times when I'm
helping friends.
I'd like to see Phasing take place on NPC's, and how I see the world
(additional landscape, destroyed or reconstructed areas etc).
I don't want it to effect my friends, making them disapear.
I don't want it to effect their quest monsters rendering me unable to
help because I can't see the monster.
Phasing is a good thing, it just needs some tweaking. I'd rather have
my friend ask me why I'm standing in the air (because they can't see a
section of a building), than not see me at all. For me, being unable
to assist is more gamebreaking than seeing odd graphics.
Deadly. Off. Topic. Dec 14th 2009 10:35AM
And one of the problems I've noticed with phased areas is that it takes a little bit of load time with the server and your computer to realize that "Hey, wait! Player X can't see Content A anymore, must load up Content B... hold on... lag... nothing shows up until you ride into an army of Lieutenants and Commanders. Oops!"
YourTearsRdelish Dec 13th 2009 8:17AM
I think the reason Blizz moved most of the lore to books and comics is because of the "It's just a game" crowd would rather just rush to endgame and complain about how boring the game.
Now it is just a game but I know I'm not the only one who still enjoys a good story every now and then right?
I agree with this completely and I think Blizz took note of just look at Cataclysm the land and races changed a little bit stuff like that makes a game fun.
It would be really cool to have actual conversations with the NPC's but again the concept of immersion is alien to the majority community of WoW.
mtsadowski Dec 13th 2009 10:14PM
They moved a lot to books and comic books because they want to generate more revenue. And they know they can. And good for them.
macster Dec 13th 2009 8:25AM
I haven't played a single-player RPG since Oblivion - and all I thought while I was playing was "This'd be great if there was other players around". They just don't do it for me any more, I enjoy the group play dimension that MMOs have brought to RPGs - making them more like the tabletop games of my youth, where it's me and a group of friends, rather than me and my gang of fawning AI underlings (Aribeth from Neverwinter Nights, anyone?)
And Jaina Proudmoore? Euch. I'd rather "sex up" Basic Campfire.
RetadinMan Dec 13th 2009 8:42AM
My only complaint is the lack of context for many characters.
The reason why there is a lot of unnecessary Varian hate is because all of his story is in the comics. People who haven't read them see his actions out of context and hate him.
Same with Vindicator Maraad. He's pretty kickass in the comics, but does absolutely nothing in game.
Raze Dec 13th 2009 8:47AM
Everquest already did do the conversation trees to an extent, which was annoying, because you apparently had to actually type out responses ala interactive fiction like Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Its sequel does likewise, but the options are now chosen from a list, and your average WoW player would hate it because it would wind up being a bunch of text that they just don't care to read that they would scroll through to get to what they really want: Experience and/or gold.
The way I see it, a single player experience is something tailor made for storytelling and immersion, something an MMO just cannot do right now. For anyone who's played Bioshock I'm sure you remember just how atmospheric the first stage was as you swam from the crashed airplane and descended down to Rapture. Nothing like that could even begin to be replicated in a multiplayer only game: it just wouldn't work well at all. Not to mention, the ability to affect the narrative of an MMO is nonexistent in every single one I've played, even those that tote the story as a key feature. Why couldn't I say I didn't want to help Rhonin "Mary Sue" Whatever-his-Surname-is and side with the blue dragons? I haven't played Dragon Age yet, but I would hope a game everyone and their mother is brown nosing about like its the second coming of RPG Christ would offer up a choice in such a morally ambiguous situation as the one presented with Malygos. You could argue that diverging stories in an MMO wouldn't work, but with all this praise Blizzard is getting with their phasing technology, you would think they'd actually put the thing to work every now and again for something interesting.
If I could choose two things to add to World of Warcraft from a single player RPG, it would be voice acting for every single NPC who has dialogue at all, since I cant' help but notice other players seem more engaged when events are voice acted, and some element of choice when it comes to plot points and major events in the game.
Stuart Dec 13th 2009 12:14PM
I never understood why everyone swears DA:O is the next big thing in RPGs, it's about 5 years behind the times. The graphics are extremely glitchy in major plot scenarios. theres notihng like watching a cutscene only to have your bear walk into the camera and all you see for the next 5 minutes is the side of a brown bear.
The other big issue I had with DA:O is that the characters actions don't really effect the world as much as they say. If i kill an entire village, no one in the rest of the world cares. the world keeps on spinning like nothing happened(sorry red). I can kill a child and the only difference is I lose an NPC to deal with.
The ending... a slideshow of text. I don't mind text, but like you mentioned, people treat this as the second coming of RPGs, and all i get was a lousy slideshow? I wouldv'e much preferred even a little small FMV based on decisions i made. could've been short clips based on major decisions.
I dunno though, I love RPGs but DA:O fell flat on it's face if you ask me.
least in KOTOR your negative actions would let you act like a complete dark badass in conversation.
SW:TOR hopefully will get it right =)
rawrawrawr Dec 13th 2009 8:56AM
Khadgar is a good example of how i think a lot of other major lore NPCs should have been done. When you talk to him in Shat, he explains his background succinctly, with your character asking him questions, which he answered. The dialogue is here: http://www.wowwiki.com/Khadgar so you can see what I mean. I think this kind of thing should have been incorporated into other lore characters, especially ones from the novels and comics. For example, I had to wowwiki Rhonin to get even the slightest idea of who he is. For a character who is in charge of a major organisation in the game, i think that's problematic on Blizzard's part.
On the other hand, if I were blizzard, I would be trying to limit the amount of people who know of Rhonin's dreadful backstory.
Nawaf Dec 13th 2009 11:52AM
Agreed. That good feature exists with some NPCs such as Khadgar and Nobundo (Although I think Nobundo is neccessary because there isn't Any other good source). They should add that for Varian, Thrall, Sylvanas, Velen, Cairne, Alexstraza, Fendral, Rhonin, and Jaina.
npanth Dec 13th 2009 8:58AM
One thing that I really like about games like Oblivion was the permanence of your actions. You could really get people mad at you. Save the rats in a ladies basement, though, and the story will spread all over town. WOW represents this with reputation, which is a pale imitation. Rep just changes the colors of the nameplates over npcs, not anything more permanent. I think that's why so many people go after the Bloodsail Admiral title, it's the only way to really change a rep that matters.
Girkke Dec 14th 2009 7:50PM
I completely agree. I wish my actions affected how people treat me. The reputation system is a start, but they need to fine tune the factions so that you can affect people on a more micro level.
And I miss the charisma stat from EQ. I loved that NPCs were nicer to you the higher your charisma. It paid to be charming :)