User:Raine Valen/Design/Commander and Soldier

Unlike some other Design pages, this one'll focus on an overarching game concept, rather than on specific mechanics. Mechanics will be written in where necessary.

The Basics

Preface

The basic MMOG model has had some basic flaws since its inception; this concept seeks to address one of them. Before I move on, though, allow me to specify why I don't say "MMORPG", here: RPGs and MMOGs have steadily been changing, over the years, especially in the "RP" department. Traditionally, the RPG puts a character in a role, and the game follows their story. Recent trends, though, are showing that that model is a bit antiquated: people want to lead their story. They want to feel like they're doing important things, and they're familiar enough with gaming, in 2012, that the superficial "assigned role" and "linear path" deals are wearing on the gaming population.

It's not novel, anymore.

But I wouldn't say that we're at the point where we're ready to forsake that tradition, entirely, no. Look at EVE: it's got a world with few limits, and that massive break from tradition kind of puts people aback. Structure is an ingrained part of our lives; removing it, at some level, makes us uncomfortable.

At the same time, though, we've shown that we're not so happy with the train-tracks storylines from the games of yore. There are...

A Couple of Commonly-Cited Grievances:

Within the traditional system, there are a couple of things that show up over and over in the list of things that players are growing weary of. A couple of the bigger ones, from what I've seen, are listed here, shortly.

• The world doesn't feel like its changing because of your efforts. You destroy a building for a quest or mission; someone comes along behind you and does it again. The Big Bad you finally save the world by slaying, at the end, is somehow still there. Not only does this make little sense, but it makes your success feel less meaningful. No bueno.
• The new-content factory just can't keep up. Not everyone is a casual player; there's a very real "hardcore gamer" demographic. When devs drop a patch, the content is burned through, inevitably, before the next patch is ready to hit the ground. Because of this, the hardcore sector tends to judge games by their endgame state, which kind of deserves a new bullet.
• The complaints at endgame tend to be pretty repetitive, too: "There aren't new things to do." (which makes sense, after you've "beaten" the game, right?). A lot of people turn to the ever-changing world of PvP, but that's certainly not everyone. For everyone else, games often become a new grind of repeating mostly-identical content over and over. We can do better than that.

And, in fact, we already have done better than that. Just in a different genre. You see...

A RTSG is a Better RPG

Just not for the player. The RTS-player doesn't take on the traditional role of a soldier or mage or whatever the case may be. The player's units, however do: they're engaged in an ever-evolving world, playing through the story of a war campaign that someone is pouring time and effort into. But that vague "someone" is not the developer of RPGs, to date, no: this designer is another player, fighting their large-scale battle as the lowly unit fights their small-scale one.

So there we have a solution, albeit an imperfect one: let's allow gamers to take on the role of units in a RTS game. They enjoy the benefits of this ever-evolving world, one where there is no real "endgame". A campaign may end, yes, but there'll be another brave, new campaign waiting to begin.

It's a beautiful concept, isn't it? Thing is, it's an imperfect model.

Some Friction at the Joint

Remember how I said that I didn't wand this to be a mechanical writing, but that mechanics would be included where necessary? Well, here's where they're necessary.

A new mechanic is a solution to a problem, and, in this case, we've got a whole slew of problems to solve. See, though the benefits of this sort of RTS/RPG integration are profound, neither system as it currently exists is designed to incorporate the other. That is to say that if we took Starcraft and made a game where a player took the role of a Zergling, it would be a shitty RPG. I mean, what can a Zergling do that a player would really be stoked about? It's not just Zerglings, though: across the board, the vast majority of RTS units face a pretty dull life.

At the same time, if we took Guild Wars and allowed a player to issue orders, they probably wouldn't have as much fun as they would playing, well, Starcraft. I don't even have to explain how this worked: look at Hero Battles.

So how do we make a good RTS that's made up of good RPGs?