Cryptic Studios has posted a dev blog where they look at the design process of an MMO, and re-examine the role of character archetypes in Champions Online.

No game design is perfect. There are so many factors that go into the design of a video game, especially a massively-multiplayer role-playing game, that hitting on a perfect design from the start is nearly impossible. There are unforeseen elements that crop up from the interactions of dozens of game systems over a huge amount of game content. There are technical budget limitations that force designers to make decisions on how to evaluate whether to make game features simpler or cutting them entirely. As game implementation proceeds over the course of months and years, the initial game design may evolve into something quite different than original conception.

The initial game design is largely based on a game design vision, IP considerations, industry trends, and budget. The design process is shepherded by the creative officer of a company and the respective design leads, with additional consideration by company directors, investors, publishers, marketers, etc. Decades worth of game design experience go into the initial game designs for a project as it goes through much iteration of conceptual design, analysis, and buyoff from all parties involved.

Read more here.

NICE! Classless system please!

"...making archetype distinctions effectively restricted power choice by creating optimum and non-optimum groupings of powers."

 

"Would it be possible to create an open character creation system that still solved the same problems that character classes did?"

If you like to cheer about classless systems, you need to think about these two quotes.

Take the second quote first -- here you have a successful game developer stating flat-out that there are game-design problems that classes can often solve.  The price of that solution is that players have a bit less freedom.

The first quote shows that optimum and non-optimum groupings of powers are a problem that leads to an implicit loss of freedom for the player.  In other words, you might find yourself taking powers you don't really want because the game will reward you with a bonus for taking powers that "go together" according to the game's rules.

But take this implicit loss of freedom a step further (or perhaps a step in another direction), and you can see the problems inherent in a classless system.

In the classeless games I have played, where the game does not explicitly reward or punish the player for his ability choices, you inevitably see a few templates arise that are seen as the "best" ways to develop a character.  Furthermore, certain abilities or sets of abilities often seem to be ignored by the developers and dismissed by players as sub-par.

So, in effect, you might find yourself taking powers you don't really want because the game will implicitly reward you for taking powers that make you more successful in the overall scheme of the game.

So basically, the ONLY difference here is whether you want your choices restricted by explicit or implicit game considerations.  In other words, do you want the game to tell you which power groupings it is going to reward, or do you want to make the players figure it out?  In the end, there is no mystery even in the latter, as the optimum templates will be all over the Internet by the end of beta.

I'm not saying a classless system can't be done well.  I'm just saying there is a certain hypocrisy in touting "player freedom" as the reason for doing so -- unless you go the extra mile and make sure that every power in your list is worth taking.  So far, no classless MMOG has even come close.

I have to completely disagree Hexxeity.  There have been several classless games that have done very well, just very few lately, which is of course Eve.  UO, AC1 and SWG(pre-NGE) had excellent skill systems and in none of the games were there specific templates that dominated.  Now of course some templates were lacking but there was enough variety to preclude specific builds.

Class based systems are implemented because developers are lazy.   They don't want to do the extra work required to balance skills.

We most certainly do disagree.  UO and AC1 were the games I was thinking of most when I wrote my post.

Perhaps we traveled in different circles, but specific templates were definitely all the rage in both games.

For the most part, I agree with you Hexx.  But I don't think the flaw is with the skill based system as much as it is with the way the systems have been implemented.

I would love to see a skill based system where palyers had tough choices to make- choices that would impact their gaming experience positively in one way, perhaps negatively in another. 

Take WoW mages, for example ( a class I'm sure you're at least a bit familiar with ).

What if, by choosing to specialize in Fire, a mage had to eliminate Ice spells from her repertoire?

Would she? Could she?  Would one type be seen as superior in all cases or just in some? or most?

I'm just rambling and thinking aloud, but I think a successful skill based system is doable.  It's also possible for such a system to run in to the exact problem you described so well.

If any one is going to do it right, it'd probably be Cryptic.  I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Originally posted by Hexxeity

I'm not saying a classless system can't be done well.  I'm just saying there is a certain hypocrisy in touting "player freedom" as the reason for doing so --

Ah, but that's what I'm saying ... it gives people the illusion that they might create something interesting. unique and powerful, when most of the time you end up making the choices that are obviously superior -- and so does everyone else.  Yes, you can be different, but your experience (as in game experience, not XP) will suffer.