Interview Jeff Vogel interview at Evil Avatar

[Saint_Proverbius]

Tags: Geneforge

There's an <A href="http://www.evilavatar.com/redirected.asp?fromurl=http%3A//www.evilavatar.com/EA/News/Interviews/M43511/">interview</a> with <b>Jeff Vogel</b> of <A href="http://www.spidweb.com">Spider Web</a> over at <a href="http://www.evilavatar.com">Evil Avatar</a>. Here's a snip:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote><b>About how many people download a game like Geneforge? How many of them register?
<br>
<br>
Jeff Vogel:</b> Since the game is available in so many places (including one magazine CDs), the exact number of people who try it out is a matter of great mystery.
<br>
<br>
However, a lot of people buy our games, enough to support three people nicely full-time. Plus enough to buy toys and formula for a rapacious 1 year old.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
It's nice to know that <b>Jeff Vogel</b> is getting some more main stream exposure. He deserves all the recognition he gets.
<br>
<br>
Thanks <B>Kyote</b> of <A href="http://www.rpgplanet.com">RPG Planet</a> for the word!

 

[Azael]

JV: I am pathetic. I am most looking forward to Grand Theft Auto 3, No One Lives Forever 2, and Max Payne. They have been siting on my desk for months waiting to be played, but I don't, because I can't stop playing Everquest.

I feel that any prospective rpg designer can learn anything he or she ever needs to know by playing 2 games: Everquest and Planescape: Torment

I must say that this strikes me as a bit odd. I wouldn't call either of those games the pinnacles of RPGs, although Torment probably has one of the best stories I've encountered in a computer game. It's also hard to swallow the fact that the creator of Geneforge is a BG2 fan.

 

[DrattedTin]

He IS pathetic.

It's a matter of taste though; you can't expect someone you admire to be exactly like you in every way.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'd like to know what he thinks an RPG designer can gain from Everquest. I've heard him tout the game before as an example of good design, but honestly, I don't get it.

In fact, one of the things I hated about Geneforge was a feature in Everquest, the way it deals with experience. The main reason I hate that method is because when I betatested EQ, I got kiled by a group of orcs which I no longer got experience from, by in a group, they could easily kill my character. It seems to me that if you're in a situation where you can die, you should get some experience from it just for the mortal risk of the event. In Geneforge, this was also true with the turrets. In groups, they could kill you, even though you were beyond the level where you could gain experience from them.

 

[DrattedTin]

Call his attention to it?

I rather think he admires the 'addictive' quality of EQ.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

He read my review. I mentioned that in it.

 

[Astromarine]

EQ design qualities

Guys, I think you are confusing the issue a bit. Everquest is, of course, a bad RPG, but it is a great design. Much like Diablo 2 is the game I most admire for pure design, in a "game theory" kind of way, not in a "this game rocks" kinda way.

Diablo 2 is a streamlined addictive experience, capable of gripping people for years. It inherits this from the great design philosophies of most roguelikes, which can be likewise gripping. But it adds to the mix a *fantastic* soundtrack, good graphics, and a presentation to die for. Thus, it becomes more "palatable" to the main public, without losing the basic principles of a roguelike: random drops, random maps, a good, hard, level progression, nice scaled difficulty setting. This makes it almost pure, lean, game essence. It strips most of the fat to get a good foundation, and builds some presentation on top.

Everquest is the holy graal of online games. Whatever qualities a game must possess to sppeal to a paying customer base for years, that game has them all. Granted, it does not have a good story, or good character development, whatever. But still, the foundation for addictiveness and replayability is there. If a designer can take the basic foundation of EQ, strip all the online-only idiossincrasies, and build on top of it a good, involved storyline, with all the "must haves" for a good RPG (non-linearity, tactical combat, etc) he would probably get very close to a game most people could enjoy.

Astro

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I'm not even sure I'd agree with that much, unless it's changed majorly since the beta and become a whole new game. I don't have very fond memories of being lost in the woods and having an orc chase me for nearly a half an hour(real time) until I eventually found a town, getting killed by orcs I no longer got experience for, having to go find my corpse when I died, not getting experience for anything but combat, waiting at respawns for the respawn so you could run down the hill and kill those newly spawned monsters, and so on.

Really, EverQuest would make a horrible single player experience, because if you stripped away the social aspect which you can get for free elsewhere on the internet, you'd be left with a really lousy game. The combat isn't interesting at all and boils down to LPMUD combat with 3D paperdolls. There's very little interaction with NPCs other than buying stuff and picking up really inane quests from the guildmaster. The skills like making things might entertain you for a little bit, but I doubt they'd grab your attention that long without something else making them more interesting.

 

[MF]

It is a wonderful design, but the design is in the marketing and service department. Not in the game-aspect of the total economical wonder package that is 'Everquest'.

 

[ecliptic]

Everquest knows to put those boobies in their box art.

 

[Section8]

I don't consider Diablo or Diablo 2 to be shining examples of game design, simply because addictive games aren't necessarily a good thing. Addiction is a negative word, and in the case of just about anything else, being addicted is usually a very bad thing. Diablo irritates me because the game itself isn't fun, it just has a bunch of things to hook gamers. I don't really think that's a good philosophy to have when developing games. An addictive game will generally be a success, and from a money POV, that's good, but I think the ethics involved are pretty dubious. Gamers should play your game and keep playing your game because they enjoy it, not because they're addicted to it.

I do realise the "addictive" is a bit of a buzzword when it comes to games, but in the case of Diablo or Everquest, I think it's pretty close to the truth.

 

[Trash]

This is one of the just 2 reactions on the interview.

"Wow. I had NEVER heard of these titles. I'm definitely going to check them out. I think he should join forces with John Romero."

The idea is entertaining jet frightening.
Glad someone found out that there is more to pc gaming than just 3d blasters though.

Trash

 

[Azael]

Maybe Jeff should join forces with George Romero instead. Yeah, a zombie RPG!

 

[Psilon]

Yeah, a zombie RPG!

And so we return to Diablo II and beating up hordes of undead. Or DivDiv and beating up hordes of undead. Or Arcanum and shouting Bruce Campbell one-liners while beating up and shooting hordes of undead.
Or do you mean an RPG from the undead perspective?

As for DivDiv, I know there are other enemies (I'm finally fighting Orcs here), but it does take a while to get past the catacombs one's first time through.

 

[ecliptic]

The catacombs don't take too long if 4 levels down you completely miss a secret floor tile and continue playing the exploring other areas out of frustration.

Don't worry though, there's much more difficult undead coming up. Insane skeletons.. shudder.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't consider Diablo or Diablo 2 to be shining examples of game design, simply because addictive games aren't necessarily a good thing.

In my opinion, both Diablos are examples of a perfect game design. Now I want to note that Diablo is not my cup of tea for many reasons, but I admire the craftsmanship. Any gameplay element is refined till its nearly perfect. Everything makes sense. Everything fits and support the game model. The classes, the avatars, the interface, the skill trees, etc. While there are some things that might have been handled differently, there are none that were done wrong, and that's probably what Jeff referred to.

simply because addictive games aren't necessarily a good thing

About that. Any good recreation including games is addictive by default. I don't recall myself thinking 'This game sucks, I should play it again sometimes', but I remember playing many great games that I could not stop playing. Another turn, mission, roll, etc.

 

[Section8]

In my opinion, both Diablos are examples of a perfect game design. Now I want to note that Diablo is not my cup of tea for many reasons, but I admire the craftsmanship. Any gameplay element is refined till its nearly perfect. Everything makes sense. Everything fits and support the game model. The classes, the avatars, the interface, the skill trees, etc. While there are some things that might have been handled differently, there are none that were done wrong, and that's probably what Jeff referred to.

I definitely agree that it was polished and exceedingly well put together, but I'd throw that into the production category. It's elegant simplicity. Squared.

About that. Any good recreation including games is addictive by default. I don't recall myself thinking 'This game sucks, I should play it again sometimes', but I remember playing many great games that I could not stop playing. Another turn, mission, roll, etc.

There we go with the "buzzword" use of addiction. Doing something because it's enjoyable isn't an addiction. I spent the last few weeks playing Wizardry 8 until 3am every other night, usually saying to myself "Just a little further."

I haven't played it for a few days now, and it's not because of a conscious decision to "kick the habit," it's because after extended play, it got boring. It's impossible to become sick/bored of something you are addicted to.

Addiction, in my opinion tends to refers to some peripheral component of whatever is causing the habit. Compulsive gamblers don't gamble because they enjoy the games, they gamble because the money is a carrot in front of their mule. Cigarette smokers aren't addicted to the taste or smell, they are addicted to the nicotine.

I see Diablo (and MMORPGs such as EQ) in a similar light. The players aren't addicted to the gameplay, because there is very little gameplay to be had. They are addicted to the carrot provided through character and item advancement. It's like a monkey that can't wait to get back in a space capsule. He doesn't really enjoy pushing buttons, but it's a means to end to receive rewards.

Players of EQ and Diablo qualify "just another" comments with progression milestones. They don't want to keep playing for just another combat because the last one was so much fun, they play yet another combat because it's getting them closer to that all important next level. That's exactly the reason most MMORPGs have a prominently displayed XP counter. It's the hook. The component that keeps the player addicted.

That's where the line is drawn, and the best way to highlight it is to simply ask "Would this game be fun without advancement rewards?"

 

[Vault Dweller]

I definitely agree that it was polished and exceedingly well put together, but I'd throw that into the production category. It's elegant simplicity. Squared.

It's much more then could be said about way too many games these days, so Bliz should take it as a compliment. I like the 'elegant simplicity' line.

That's where the line is drawn, and the best way to highlight it is to simply ask "Would this game be fun without advancement rewards?"

Good point. Let me reply with a question of my own: "How many games would be fun without advancement rewards?" 90% of all commercial CRPGs offer nothing but fast leveling and phat loot. Stupid public is to blame of course, but that's not the point. Yet they are not as "polished and exceedingly well put together" as Diablos are.

As for addictivness, I think it's a factor of a person not a product. There is an addiction to almost everything: smoking, games, drinking, golfing, camping, swinging . It's just a part of human nature, I guess, but the degree depends on a person. You became bored with Wiz8 'cause it gets boring, in my opinion. I've seen better, I've played better. So did you. But I know many people who played it 3 times over and can't get enough. Just like D2. I played it a few times, tried a few characters, admired the works, and that was it. Yet people are addicted to it, playing it after all these years. Although it's not as bad as those freaks who play Solitaire all day long :shock:

Wiz8 was not the best example, but I'm certain you played something that made you forget about everything else. What about Elite, Civ1, X-COM1, MOO1, Fallout1?

Cigarette smokers aren't addicted to the taste or smell, they are addicted to the nicotine.

I've been smoking for 8 years, about a pack a day, stopped 6 months ago. I don't know about nicotine, but the smell of an open pack still drives me nuts. And i certainly liked the taste Oh well...

 

[Section8]

Ah well, I've probably smoked about 3 packs total in my lifetime and it just didn't really appeal. To me they tasted like shit and the buzz just didn't feel worth it. I'm sure if I smoked enough of them I'd develop a craving

"How many games would be fun without advancement rewards?"

See, that's why Diablo(s) shouldn't be hailed as a shining example of game design, simply because it encourages ph4t l3wt style play. I have no problem with advancement as an aside to great gameplay, such as Tony Hawk Pro Skater with it's character progression, but if that's all the game has, it ain't worthwhile.

 

[Vault Dweller]

See, that's why Diablo(s) shouldn't be hailed as a shining example of game design, simply because it encourages ph4t l3wt style play. I have no problem with advancement as an aside to great gameplay, such as Tony Hawk Pro Skater with it's character progression, but if that's all the game has, it ain't worthwhile.

I agree with you in theory, but in reality there is may be 5-10% really great totally immersive games that you play to explore the storyline and play a part of it. May be there could not be more of these games, after all how many really good books are out there, probably the same 5-10%. So if it's impossible (in my opinion) to have 100% of great games, I will praise any of the remaining 90% that were "polished and exceedingly well put together" even if it's a ph4t l3wt style game. Although you put that into the production categery, it's still a very important part that could ruin otherwise great experience.

Take Arcanum for example, great RPG without a doubt, but there are so many minor issues like interface, skill balance, ranged combat issues, char models (not even the quality, but inability to "look the part" if you know what I mean) that stopped Arcanum from becoming a true masterpiece.

 

[Astromarine]

I don't actually think Diablo 2's strength is in the phat loot rewards. Not only that, at least. Diablo 2 I played in several "phases", so to speak, and I enjoyed all of them for different reasons:

1) The first run through Normal difficulty. You simply get overwhelmed at the music, the videos, the dificulty, the tension, everything is great. You get a shitload of skills to choose from, you try to start making plans on what is a good character, and you see different attempts crash and burn being unable to kill Diablo.

2) The tactical thinking. You experiment with several builds, you develop a "feel" for what works and what doesn't. You start hunting items that will help you, you start thinking mathematically, trying to balance the several different options for the character.

3) Battle.Net and the MF treadmill. You go to bnet, you get rushed, get some gear and start hunting for those nice items you see everyone else having. You jump with joy at your first elite unique, you learn to revile dupers and cheaters, and you optimize meph runs for the leet itamz

4) The endgame. Like phase 2, but at a higher level of power. You try to develop variants, you start thinking in terms of slots and breakpoints, minmaxing and modifiers.

Diablo 2 is the minmaxer's dream. The good part about it is making all the math in your head to get a little bit more powerful. This is not an RPG, of course, but in it's own niche it is the best example (Angband is deeper, but presentation also counts)

Astro

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I have to agree with the above. Diablo 2 allows for a lot of character system planning, which is great for stat whores. I've often found it funny when BG fans say that Diablo 2 is mindless, considering the character system for 2E was pretty bare bones in terms of what the users could actually do with their character. A level 15 fighter is pretty much a level 15 fighter, after all.

Diablo 2, on the other hand, had so many skills per class, and so many ways of building a character, there were gobs and gobs of variants within classes, Spearazon, Combat Necro, and so forth, so not only were the classes fairly different, how you made them was also different. Sure, you could claim that this boils down to a choice of weapons, but that's a fairly shallow view of it considering all the skill augmentations there were based on the weapon types for that character varient. A Spearazon played differently than a Bowazon or a Javazon, for example.

 

[Spazmo]

That is also true, but after nine patches and a major expansion (in terms of changes made to game balance), only a few classes and variants are still viable. Most any type of necromancer, for example, is more or less useless at the higher difficulty levels, while it's ridiculously easy to build a sorceress that can pretty much kill anything anywhere.

Of course, that doesn't make it any less fun to play one of these underpowered characters, but let's just say the game doesn't encourage you to do so.