The first model involves making thing as identical as possible and relying upon reskinning to create an illusion of variation. Real time strategy games are great at this. In RPGs you might have a choice between a fireball or an icestorm, both with the same radius and same damage effects. This model also comes with a companion effect of rock-paper-scissors design with lots of "counter" abilities. Fire deals double damage to water, Earth armor resists lightning, etc.
The second model involves giving truly different gameplay roles to different elements, creating a different kind of game depending on what you choose. There is no attempt to actually balance everything on a point-by-point basis, but to give people roles that are so different that balance is largely irrelevant.
Regrettably, video games chose the first model. This could be to save system resources. It is easier to make the same unit or spell and give it two different graphics. But we are well beyond such considerations now. We are no longer limited to 8 bits.
What does this have to do with Mike Mearls and Stuart?
Because the evolution of RPGs towards increasing complexity, as described by Mearls and culminating in 4e, is merely the acceleration of the 1st model. It isn't good for the Fighter to be able to attack every round while the Wizard casts a single spell after 3 rounds and destroys a row of enemies. The Wizard needs to be able to attack every round but for low damage and the Fighter needs their own super-powered attacks. Actual variation is cast aside and reskinned variation is added instead.
And why do they want reskinned variation? Because they can change the skins and sell you more product. And they can sell you Cards to give you a little actual variation back. It is about MONEY. And as Ryan Dancey said in Stuart's comments, CCGs follow a profitable model that involves increasing complexity up to a point, the wiping it all out and going back to a basic model, then raising complexity again. As Stuart rightly questions, is this what gamers want or what producers want?
There is only one problem with this model of reskinning. It doesn't match up to the real world.
This is a Sherman Tank. It is a TERRIBLE tank. The primary armament was incapable of penetrating the front armor of most tanks that it went up against in the field. It was a death trap when hit. The German and Soviet tanks in WW2 were VASTLY superior tanks. Real life is not balanced.
This is a musket. It doesn't care if you are wearing plate mail armor or a tunic. It doesn't care if you are a Knight or a commoner.Your decades of training is no match for a small metal ball. Real life is not balanced.
To borrow from Ben Franklin,
A gamer who will trade real choices for pretty marketing deserves neither.
Can we stop the trend towards reskinned false choices? Please?
No comments:
Post a Comment