Topic

collectivism

why not a tree that only grows when 5 different people have petted it?

why not a home that is constructed or purchased and then owned by multiple players?

why not devices that require multiple players to operate?

why not bake collectivism into the foundation of the game?

playing the alpha last night, the lack of interaction between players was striking. i think this interaction will be the key to the ultimate success and unique character of this game. though there was a lot of kissing, a lot of mooning and a lot soaking - this seemed to end up being a stream of hit and run, ultimately antisocial interaction.

item gathering and trade could ultimately create an economy that necessitates communication and a commerce .. and that is very good .. but isn't the kind of direct collaboration that provides its own reward.

while i don't play world of warcraft, i do know that guilds and raiding are a big part of its appeal to many. i also know that raids require direct collaboration and teamwork to accomplish discrete tasks. there's something compelling about that, more so than interaction through or surrounding trade.

"round up a gang of 5 to do x" sounds a lot more fun to me than "do x to 5 different people". this collaborative structure can be applied from everything to planting a tree, operating a device, building a house, building a city etc. etc.

i feel kind of stoopid though, i must admit, suggesting this. like there's something already in the game that i'm missing that makes this suggestion irrelevant or that people will have zero interest in working together in the game in the way i've articulated here : [

Posted 3 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • also, from a business perspective .. requiring 5 different people to complete a task make it more likely that i'll invite 4 more friends to play the game with me .. right?

    forcing us to pester our friends to come play the game with us so that we can be more successful would sort of suck .. but encouraging us to invite people or meet people by making collaboration a more important and obvious element isn't the same as pestering exactly.

    i guess it is also important to be able to play the game "solo" .. i dunno. i'm just spouting off : [
    Posted 3 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I agree.... it's a great idea to have people need to do things together. (And maybe also people with different skills?)
    Posted 3 years ago by clare Subscriber! | Permalink
  • yes. combining different skills is terrific. so much so that i wonder if it should be at the very core of the game.

    in WoW you have tanks, buffers and damage dealers who all have to work together to slay a boss.

    in glitch it might be nice to have builders, gardeners and item collectors who all work together to develop a town to live and work in together. but even then it might be good to have certain things that only *multiple* builders or *multiple* gardeners can do when working together. creating discrete items and so on.
    Posted 3 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I totally agree about having group making or group tasks. Building a UI and coming up with how it works is a difficult challenge. If the interactions are group based but asynchronous it becomes easier. Eg: you are good at fertilizing and I'm good at watering and we both have to tend the garden to get results (you could scale this up with other specialties like "weed removal" etc.) Neither of us can do both so we must specialize and join forces.

    Doing such group activities in real time (or near real-time) is tougher. I think we are up for the challenge though. Group dynamics (non-combat) could certainly be a core feature that sets it apart from other games.

    Some activities could be solo only. There are plenty of gamers that like being in a multi-player world but also like to just solo grind, quest, make sometimes. It's a balance to cater to solo players and group players while not leaving either type unsatisfied.
    Posted 3 years ago by Jason Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i don't think having it be synchronous i really important. it's more difficult on the developers but also more difficult on the players.

    asynchronous is better all around. most folks will do things quickly one after the other so it'll feel synchronous enough.

    that's for making/building/planting tho.

    one thing that would be *great* to have synchronous is exploring. like needing two people to stand on two separate pressure plates in order to activate a door that a third person walks through.
    Posted 3 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • another great mechanic might be "carrying", where one person stands on another in order to reach an item.

    see super mario brothers, new.

    although you could take it to the next level by having giant, tottering towers of a dozen or so people. that'd *wow* people.
    Posted 3 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I was thinking kinda like Puzzle Pirates, too, where you need all the different roles to take the ships out. (And if you can't find players, who are generally better, you can enlist the help of bots to take out the ships.) When the players do their tasks, they're independent, but all the tasks need to be going on at some level as the ship is sailing.
    Posted 3 years ago by clare Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Jason's right that the game shouldn't structurally exclude certain types of player (solo-ers or group-ers); but in the effort to build a distinctive, appealing experience, Glitch! is likely to be strengthened if there are a few tasks/quests that require a degree of synchronous group effort and some that benefit from a degree of asynchronous group effort.

    One of my complaints about WoW was the extent to which the devs seemed to take certain constituencies (and sometimes "certain aspects of the game") for granted as they opted to really spruce up other constituency Y or aspect X. An integrated environment with as much openness and possibility as you can allow will encourage the kind of ingenuity and whimsy that set GNE apart, and can help set Glitch! apart likewise.
    Posted 3 years ago by Peter Verona Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Puzzle Pirates is a great example of a group effort, because it's simultaneously required but easy to fulfill. Sims Online had activities that required collaboration as well (item production, I don't remember what else), but it never was fun because of it. (granted, most of the game was pretty terrible ;) )
    Posted 3 years ago by Delphin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "required but easy to fulfill" is good.
    Posted 3 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • The biggest problem to me with WoW guilds and group quests is the time constraints. I'm sure Glitch isn't going down this route, but having to meet up with you very static group at a specific time to do something that you have all done many times before is not fun for anyone. Some people just get addicted to the idea of getting some reward. Make the game itself fun, not a rat pulling a lever. :)

    I don't really think it's going to be a problem, based on what I've seen, but... :)
    Posted 3 years ago by cohesion Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "The biggest problem to me with WoW guilds and group quests is the time constraints."

    glitch seems more potentially asynchronous tho. combat is very synchronous, but building, making, farming is not.

    so glitch should allow for the same dynamics, either synchronous or asynchronous - depending on who is around when.
    Posted 3 years ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink