gatlock wrote:m'enfin bon, je dis ca, c'est pas comme si le pvp existait depuis quinze ans et pas comme si tout ca avait déja été experimenté, testé, corrigé, adapté, ajusté depuis quinze ans.
là, on se croirait vraiment revenu a trammel premiere édition.
Un point important tout de même : l'Episode II, Nevrax y travaille depuis des mois... Le principe même de l'épisode est une variante améliorée de l'invasion kitin de janvier. Les specs de l'épisode sont forcément anciennes, bien avant le "revamp" de la boîte, et ont sans doute dû être adaptées aux évolutions du gameplay depuis.
Donc tests...oui, sans aucun doute. Mais de quoi ? A quel moment ? Et va-t-on vraiment me faire croire qu'un épisode "full-pvp non consenti" porte la "griffe" de Jessica Mulligan ?
M'est avis que c'est un "coup déja parti", ce truc, qu'il fallait le sortir parce que c'était prévu dans la Storyline (baston kami-kara, apparition d'une troisième voie...), mais que sur le plan du game design...C'est encore l'ancienne vision, celle-là même contre laquelle on râle depuis près d'un an.
Donc wait & see, ok. Mais je pense vus les délais de dev que ce qu'on verra des nouveaux principes de Nevrax n'arrivera pas avant plusieurs mois...Qui a dit le mot "Ring" ?....
Allez, je ne résiste pas au plaisir de citer la productrice exécutive de Nevrax :
Jessica Mulligan wrote:Myth Four: "Non-consenting PvP is necessary to create conflict, which creates drama, and that conflict/drama draws players together."
This argument derives from the well-known theater, movie and TV concept that there is no drama without conflict. What it ignores is that A) online games are not movies or TV, and B) conflict does not have to be an immediate life or death choice to create drama. Designers tend to ignore this, because it is so much easier to just set up PvP and let er rip. If persistent world designers wrote TV shows, youd see sitcoms in which the parents discover their child disobeyed their orders to not hang out with the local bad boys (the conflict) and, instead of spending the show deciding how to deal with this thorny issue (the drama), they just gank the kid and then go steal a new one from the neighbors.
The fact is, this Myth is just the designers rationalizing their own inability to come up with something better than "Ganking for cash and prizes" with the development and management resources they have available. If you stop and think about it, more drama is created if the conflict merely suggests that life and death might be on the line later if the conflict is not resolved by other means. And far more drama is created by taking the player just to the edge of death, then jerking him back from the precipice.
The main problem as I see it is that designers seem to want to be directors, not designers. Unfortunately, what works really well in TV and the movies (or for six people around a tabletop) doesnt work very well at all in an environment that includes tens of thousands of heroes looking for the tools to create their own legend and story. Participants want to have an effect on the world; observers just want a ripping good yarn. It requires far more work, organization and execution skills to engage a participant than it does an observer.
Development teams just dont plan for the resources to manage that kind of world, because, dammit, its their world! Im designing a moving, heart-gripping story; get with the program! So what we get is the same old thing, over and over. Of course, the serial numbers and model name are filed off, polished and presented as "new and different!" Just as this years crop of sitcoms is touted as new and different, even though they are the same old jokes weve been hearing on TV for the last thirty years.
And of course, in the grand tradition of online games, well have to wait for most of these extravaganzas to crash and burn before we start to get some real work into creating a new persistent world that allows players to create their legends so successfully, it is a runaway hit. Im not sure exactly why it is that publishers and developers feel they can ignore history and empirical evidence when designing a persistent world; it is just so.
Its like every physicist in the world ignoring the work of Planck and Einstein every time they start a new research project that involves cosmology. They may get to the same place eventually, it just takes long and costs more.
And isnt that kind of stupid?
je sais) tu plantes ta pioche tu te fais manger
).