I've yet to play The Old Republic (seeing as it isn't released yet), but one thing continually bugs me about the reporting on it, and the murmurings surrounding it:
Everyone is saying it's going to have "user-driven stories", but no one has actually defined what that means
I know what you're thinking: Seldon, how can you be complaining about that when the game hasn't been released? I mean, come on man, give them a chance to really knock your socks off; you liked KOTOR, didn't you?
Well, yes, and if there's some way that they're going to absolutely knock my socks off with an ongoing storyline which changes for the entire universe on the basis of the choices of individual characters, and wherein they're adding end-game content pretty constantly in order to keep adding more "user-driven story" for the high-level and gear players. And I get that the zeitgeist right now is all about non-linearity and letting the player define the story for him/herself, so I completely understand why Bioware would be suckling that teat until it falls of.
What's the problem, then? I'll explain.
1. Bioware Doesn't Make User-Driven Games
I played KOTOR, I loved KOTOR, I'm pissed that because I don't use Xbox live, I can't play KOTOR on my 360. But, KOTOR was not a user-choice-driven game. You had the option, more or less, of playing two entirely separate games. You could play a good character, and gain all of the powers, allies, cutscenes, and "development/long-term story" of that side. Or you could play evil. They were completely isolated campaigns, like playing both the Alliance and Horde in old-school Warcraft.
What changed, though, about the game itself? Well, you solved puzzles differently. Light-side characters took the longer, more difficult, approach, and tried to find a way to do stuff without destroying everything. Dark-side characters did the opposite. Aside from some vague allusions to long-term consequences of some of those actions, did you ever change anything significant in the game (aside from the final "good guy beats evil guy, saves universe" versus "bad guy beats less powerful bad guy, wrecks shit" difference)? I don't really think so. I remember on Manaan having the choice to either blow the collection machine, or kill the fish thing. The only difference in that choice was getting dark-side or light-side points, it didn't influence the game itself.
I guess my point is that you went and did the same missions, killed the same enemies (generally), and had to get past the same obstacles by hook or by crook either way.
Yeah, that's all well and good, but what about Mass Effect and ME2?
It's the same problem. You get choices which define your character and his possible choices (to an extent), but not the ability to actually change the story of the game itself. You still chase Saren across the universe, do the same missions, kill the same bad guys, and do most of the same things. I won't belabor the point, but you never make a significant adjustment to the story of the game (ME is actually worse than KOTOR because you don't even get to be "evil", just "not a nice guy" or "charming")
2. There's No Way To Do It Right
It seems to me that there are two choices in terms of how to make "user-driven" stories in an MMO: either make the story completely shallow, make it driven almost exclusively by power gamers, or build some resets into the system.
A shallow story would be easiest. Simply make the "story" things like "who controls the system of Dramovogarog on any given day" while making the overall story itself (the battle between the Republic and Sith) isolated, and you can have both. It's short shrift to the actual concept of user-driven content, but it'd get the job done.
Well, then, why not just let them fight out the whole war? Because, my friends, then the game could conceivably end. The Old Republic takes place during a specific time period in the story of the Star Wars expanded universe, and has a story which is part and parcel of a broader storyline which has already been defined by the second-tier canon of the universe. So, what happens if everyone decides to roll Sith, and just overrun the Republic? That should end the game, but I'd bet it wouldn't. The reverse should be true, as well, but I'd bet it won't be. Instead, I'll wager some contrivances are built in to prevent even the most kick-ass assortment of Sith from ever wiping out all the Jedi and taking over the Republic entirely (I'd bet Coruscant has some sort of defensive system (entirely outside of the control of the playerbase) making it impossible to conquer).
So, if we can't finish the metagame, what's wrong with them giving us control over the smaller elements?
The short answer is that it will make the casual players irrelevant to the story, and give all of the control Bioware wanted for the players to the power gamers. And, because, it still won't be real control over the story. One of the big elements they've made note of is the role of "Mandalore" (in this case, a puppet of the Sith) who won the tournament of the Mandalorians and used his position as a sort of god-ruling of the Mandalorians to bring them into the fight on the side of the Sith. A truly user-driven story would allow me (as a player) to make a kick-ass mercenary, win the tournament, and turn the Mandalorians against the Sith, crushing them. As I said, they're not likely to allow this to happen, but they must be anticipating some major plot events which would be done by the players. Maybe a significant blockade is broken, or a significant trade route is blocked. Either way, though, the lives of casual and low-level characters will be defined in part by the decisions and actions of high-level players. That may be a turn-off.
So, what's the other option?
You can either consistently hit the reset button, especially if you make the "story" for any individual character unhinged from the broader metastory (so, you broke a blockade, won accolades, but the blockade is back in place just in time for the next plucky smuggler), or use the same kind of phasing idea Blizzard has been using in WoW for a few months.
The former wouldn't work well for what Bioware wants to do (since the story, then, isn't really user-controlled), and the latter would just piss people off. Especially since to make it work you'd have to limit it to things which wouldn't unbalance the metastory. So, even if in the leveling portion you've broken the blockade, saved the Jedi, destroyed the headquarters of whomever you like, once you hit the level cap and enter endgame content, they'd have to reconcile your story with the story of everyone else. Since they wouldn't want to make the endgame unbalanced for either side (especially in PVP) to start out, they'd have to render those choices meaningless.
Have I missed something here, because I feel like there's simply no way for Bioware to do what they're claiming to want to do.
Everyone is saying it's going to have "user-driven stories", but no one has actually defined what that means
I know what you're thinking: Seldon, how can you be complaining about that when the game hasn't been released? I mean, come on man, give them a chance to really knock your socks off; you liked KOTOR, didn't you?
Well, yes, and if there's some way that they're going to absolutely knock my socks off with an ongoing storyline which changes for the entire universe on the basis of the choices of individual characters, and wherein they're adding end-game content pretty constantly in order to keep adding more "user-driven story" for the high-level and gear players. And I get that the zeitgeist right now is all about non-linearity and letting the player define the story for him/herself, so I completely understand why Bioware would be suckling that teat until it falls of.
What's the problem, then? I'll explain.
1. Bioware Doesn't Make User-Driven Games
I played KOTOR, I loved KOTOR, I'm pissed that because I don't use Xbox live, I can't play KOTOR on my 360. But, KOTOR was not a user-choice-driven game. You had the option, more or less, of playing two entirely separate games. You could play a good character, and gain all of the powers, allies, cutscenes, and "development/long-term story" of that side. Or you could play evil. They were completely isolated campaigns, like playing both the Alliance and Horde in old-school Warcraft.
What changed, though, about the game itself? Well, you solved puzzles differently. Light-side characters took the longer, more difficult, approach, and tried to find a way to do stuff without destroying everything. Dark-side characters did the opposite. Aside from some vague allusions to long-term consequences of some of those actions, did you ever change anything significant in the game (aside from the final "good guy beats evil guy, saves universe" versus "bad guy beats less powerful bad guy, wrecks shit" difference)? I don't really think so. I remember on Manaan having the choice to either blow the collection machine, or kill the fish thing. The only difference in that choice was getting dark-side or light-side points, it didn't influence the game itself.
I guess my point is that you went and did the same missions, killed the same enemies (generally), and had to get past the same obstacles by hook or by crook either way.
Yeah, that's all well and good, but what about Mass Effect and ME2?
It's the same problem. You get choices which define your character and his possible choices (to an extent), but not the ability to actually change the story of the game itself. You still chase Saren across the universe, do the same missions, kill the same bad guys, and do most of the same things. I won't belabor the point, but you never make a significant adjustment to the story of the game (ME is actually worse than KOTOR because you don't even get to be "evil", just "not a nice guy" or "charming")
2. There's No Way To Do It Right
It seems to me that there are two choices in terms of how to make "user-driven" stories in an MMO: either make the story completely shallow, make it driven almost exclusively by power gamers, or build some resets into the system.
A shallow story would be easiest. Simply make the "story" things like "who controls the system of Dramovogarog on any given day" while making the overall story itself (the battle between the Republic and Sith) isolated, and you can have both. It's short shrift to the actual concept of user-driven content, but it'd get the job done.
Well, then, why not just let them fight out the whole war? Because, my friends, then the game could conceivably end. The Old Republic takes place during a specific time period in the story of the Star Wars expanded universe, and has a story which is part and parcel of a broader storyline which has already been defined by the second-tier canon of the universe. So, what happens if everyone decides to roll Sith, and just overrun the Republic? That should end the game, but I'd bet it wouldn't. The reverse should be true, as well, but I'd bet it won't be. Instead, I'll wager some contrivances are built in to prevent even the most kick-ass assortment of Sith from ever wiping out all the Jedi and taking over the Republic entirely (I'd bet Coruscant has some sort of defensive system (entirely outside of the control of the playerbase) making it impossible to conquer).
So, if we can't finish the metagame, what's wrong with them giving us control over the smaller elements?
The short answer is that it will make the casual players irrelevant to the story, and give all of the control Bioware wanted for the players to the power gamers. And, because, it still won't be real control over the story. One of the big elements they've made note of is the role of "Mandalore" (in this case, a puppet of the Sith) who won the tournament of the Mandalorians and used his position as a sort of god-ruling of the Mandalorians to bring them into the fight on the side of the Sith. A truly user-driven story would allow me (as a player) to make a kick-ass mercenary, win the tournament, and turn the Mandalorians against the Sith, crushing them. As I said, they're not likely to allow this to happen, but they must be anticipating some major plot events which would be done by the players. Maybe a significant blockade is broken, or a significant trade route is blocked. Either way, though, the lives of casual and low-level characters will be defined in part by the decisions and actions of high-level players. That may be a turn-off.
So, what's the other option?
You can either consistently hit the reset button, especially if you make the "story" for any individual character unhinged from the broader metastory (so, you broke a blockade, won accolades, but the blockade is back in place just in time for the next plucky smuggler), or use the same kind of phasing idea Blizzard has been using in WoW for a few months.
The former wouldn't work well for what Bioware wants to do (since the story, then, isn't really user-controlled), and the latter would just piss people off. Especially since to make it work you'd have to limit it to things which wouldn't unbalance the metastory. So, even if in the leveling portion you've broken the blockade, saved the Jedi, destroyed the headquarters of whomever you like, once you hit the level cap and enter endgame content, they'd have to reconcile your story with the story of everyone else. Since they wouldn't want to make the endgame unbalanced for either side (especially in PVP) to start out, they'd have to render those choices meaningless.
Have I missed something here, because I feel like there's simply no way for Bioware to do what they're claiming to want to do.