And we're back. It's probably been long enough that you don't even remember Onlife, GameSpy's bi-weekly MMO column, and that's understandable. But since we thrive on continuity, we're going to pick up right where we left off (number 44; check out the archives), and pretend the hiatus never actually happened. Why? Because this is probably the best time in history to relaunch a dormant MMO column. What some refer to as the "modern MMO" has long become the genre's established form (read: those MMOs released after late November 2004; you may recognize them by their quests and slackened level grinds). Games that iterate ever-so-slightly on the form are on the verge of release (Warhammer Online), while others that promise to give it a whole new lease on life are just a little further off (The Agency, Star Trek Online). In short, there's no shortage of substantive topics that beg for commentary.
Which will probably make you wonder why I'm talking about Battlefield Heroes -- not nearly an MMO by most anyone's reckoning -- in Onlife's inaugural lite-relaunch installment. My justification is that it's probably more MMO-ish than you think, which as a result will make it susceptible to some of the ruts and snags we associate with those sorts of games. By the same token, even in its current pre-open-beta-state, Battlefield Heroes depicts one probable alternate future for what we call MMOs -- a game that is undeniably rooted in the world of competitive shooters, but governed by MMO mechanics like ability-cooldowns, level progression, and the like. Ultimately, Heroes is a game that I believe people who are into MMOs will be interested in, and one that's being designed by people who I believe are into MMOs.
I've been playing it a bit and thinking about it a lot for the past week or so. What follows are some musings, cautions, and commentaries.
Skill-based?
WoW PvP (to use the most popular example) has become oppressively obtuse. Reaching max level and "learning to play" your class after you've done so is only the first, and by far the shortest hurdle. If you want to do well in WoW's Arenas (and don't fool yourself: Arenas are the only form of PvP that counts), you have to verse yourself in class synergies, learn all about macros and hotkeys, install multitudes of add-ons, the list goes on. Fail to do this, and you'll most likely languish well behind the pack. Unless you're one of those people who believes that losing is fun, too (or self-deceives to this end), the apex of WoW PvP will probably be no fun for you. Maybe this is okay; there's more to WoW than Arenas, after all. The end result, in any case, is that most Arena battles are typically decided well before the gates open. It feels like skillfully gaming the current state of rules balance is more likely to win you the day than the execution of a sound strategy.
Battlefield Heroes can't fall into this trap, and it's already in danger of doing so. I won't profess to being an expert in Battlefield games; I don't know how good DICE is about keeping its games sound over the long term. But the fact that they're building so many variables into Heroes' systems is a little alarming. Already in the beta, you see a disproportionate number of Gunners running around (Gunners being the game's answer to the "Heavy Weapons Guy"), most of which I'm willing to bet have either maxed out their shield ability, or the one that makes their machinegun fire super-accurate.
I'll admit that much of what makes me want to play Heroes' is its promise of varied abilities, full of potential for synergy and experimentation. But I hope that its designers will tread thoughtfully when it comes to implementing them.