Building a Better Superhero MMO

My experience with DC Universe Online has me daydreaming a bit more about what would make a great Superhero MMO. So, I decided to write down my design notes. If I ran the circus, here is what I would do...


Design the heroes and villains that will populate this world. Create about a dozen of each. Give each a name, an origin, an identity, a bit of back-story, and a general power set. Each character also gets a general arc. The character’s destiny may be to become earth’s greatest defender, or to have his revenge, or to rule the world, or to become king of the underworld. Each character starts at the beginning but has a different destination. Players will be able to edit their costumes, and choose how a character’s powers evolve. But you you choose to start as one of these predefined heroes or villains.

There is also a set of core NPCs that operate in the world. Some of them might be mob bosses, and dark overlords. But mostly they will be the normals: kindly neighbors, classmates, love interests, brilliant scientists, dogged detectives, intrepid reporters, hired muscle, and other reoccurring characters.

The game runs a number of these worlds in parallel. When a player signs into a game session he gets added to one of the worlds. The engine has the general mandate to get one (and only one) of each of the predefined characters into each instance. Social networking algorithms would be used to keep groups of players together and let you play with your friends. But your Mongoose is the only Mongoose. On a given day, your archenemy the Master Mime might be a low-level frustrated artist being played by a new player. Or he might be a high level criminal mastermind holding the city hostage.

In-game missions are generated by pulling players together with a matchmaking algorithm. A villain is given the chance to embark on some criminal enterprise. Selected heroes are alerted via sky signal, news bulletin, or thought bubble. They can decide to take the case and try to stop her. There would be some environmental adversaries run by the game - thugs, mercenaries, security guards etc.. but they would all but added as part of a dynamic ongoing mission, and not as an eternally respawing part of the scenery. The core of the action would be when the player-piloted heroes and villains square off. Then they succeed or fail, stand or fall. No dying and respawning for them either.

Because the game knows the hero’s name and identity, the NCPs can be woven into each of the missions as informers, hostages, and plot devices. The game can track the each character’s relationship with each of the other characters. It can go beyond costumed adventuring and explored the characters underneath the costumes as well.

Most MMOs pit a vast supply of bland characters against an unchanging environment. The game isn’t about the characters because it doesn’t know who they are. The rich potential of an MMO comes from the interaction and relationships between the players. I want a game that combines engaging characters, played by real people, with an actual storyline that recognizes these characters and lets them tell the story of their journeys together. That game might not exist yet. But I can dream.

Adventures in DC Universe Online

A few weeks ago I got an email invitation to join the DC Universe Online beta. This gave me the (free) opportunity to take the game for a spin before it became publicly available. For all my game playing I’ve never spent a lot of time with a massively multiplayer game. Here are my impressions, playtest notes, and wish-list.


At first I was quite disappointed by the MMOness of it all. It feels very much like World-of-Warcraft-with-tights. There are lots of fetch quests and beat up X guys missions. There are loot drops and raids. Weak character development and very weak story all around - even by deeply diminished video game standards. The well-populated persistent world mean nothing really changes. I’m supposed to beat up Scarecrow’s thugs and rescue my fellow citizens from his fear gas. But an infinite stream of bad guys and infected bystanders keep showing up as fast as I deal with them. I knock out baddies and free bystanders to make my quota and leave the rest for the next guy. It doesn’t feel very heroic.


Character generation is flexible and fun. You choose hero or villain and have a wide variety of costume and appearance options. Choose a power set, a weapon, and how you get around. Choose your awesome super-name. Realize that your awesome super name was already taken. And your first 6 somewhat less awesome backups are also taken. Settle for some kind of vaguely appropriate but available name. Now you’re ready for action!


The graphics and combat are only OKish relative to their single-player counterparts (like Prototype or Batman: Arkham Asylum). But they are solid and enjoyable for a game of this scope. Combat feels more more kinetic, twitchy, and action-oriented than what I would expect. Giant spring-loaded boxing gloves send characters flying. Attacks can be dodged with a quick acrobatic roll. Rhythmic button combinations lead to spectacular, leaping, flourishes of Demon Fist’s deadly power-quarterstaff. At its best it feels like you’re playing a fighting game or a brawler.


Many of the MMO conventions are present. To a superhero fan and MMO novice like me they can seem out of place or are simply baffling. Having loot drops seems odd for heroes. The appearance changes are kind of fun. But the stat changes you get from the super-pants you got from beating up Doctor Psycho are too subtle to really get excited about. Having decaying equipment seems pointless. And facing the Queen Bee with a bunch of busted gear can be especially frustrating. Collecting money seems inappropriate for the genre (if you’re a hero). And there’s not that much to buy. So I’m not really sure what the point is.


Characters can have different roles (Damage, Control, Tank, and Healer) that seem like nods to knowing WoW fans. But I wish they were more intrinsic to the characters rather than different roles my character is supposed to take on from mission to mission. Character generation provides a wide variety of power and weapon selections. Fire and ice. Flying and super speed. Magic and brawlers. But then, they all get kind of homogenized in the name of balance. Everyone seems to wind up with similar offense and defense options to work out to the same amount of damage points per second.

The biggest advantage a MMO has over a single player game is the availability of all these other players as heroes and villains. This remains my greatest disappointment with the game. I hate chat windows and can’t imagine spending my precious gaming time typing in one. All my players interactions so far have been incidental, brief, shallow and random. I wish the game did much more to encourage player interaction and helped form enduring partnerships and rivalries between the players.

If I’m dong a mission and another hero is doing the same mission right next to me, the game should ask us if we want to work together. If we do, scale the mission, open a audio chat channel, and make us a team. If we complete the mission, ask us we want to be friends. If we say yes, let us find each other and team up in future sessions.


If a villain comes along and beats me up, offer me a revenge mission that let’s me track him down. If I succeed at the revenge mission, ask us we want to be enemies. If we do, let us track each other down and do battle in future sessions.


Instead of a “Tank” mode, I want a “Social” role. When in social mode characters should not be able to attack or be attacked. Their controls  should allow them to strike a variety of poses and make a number of canned, context relevant, statements. Before a battle (or even in the middle of one) heroes and villains should be able to target each, go “Social” other to swap some banter and strike poses for a few seconds before the action resumes.


What I really want is more, deeper, more personal mission-based PvP. Give a villain a mission to go rob a bank. Tell my hero that I need to go stop the bank robbery. We both have to get to the bank and get sent to the same instance. I fight my way through henchmen. The villain fights through the guards. We meed in the middle and only one of us can be the victor.


Unfortunately, DC Universe Online doesn’t offer much of that kind of social-engineering. It does offer a lot of flash,  fireworks, power progression, and different ways to be super. I think it’s probably a good MMO. It's just too conventional for my taste. I might buy it when it comes out. But I’ll continue to look to the skies and search the rooftops. Someday a real hero will come. Someone will serve up some real stories and save us from MMO grinding and drudgery. But who? And will they be too late?

The Secrets of Lost Revealed!

I was big fan of Lost during it's first season. Before that I had been into X-Files and Twin Peaks. I was ready to sign up for more mind games. The central pleasure of the show was always trying to sort out what the heck the was going on. What is this show about?

They piled mystery on top of mystery. The crash, the island, the numbers, the polar bear, the hatch, the smoke monster, the "others", the flashbacks... The show had riddles within riddles. Enigmas came from so many different directions it was hard to imagine what was at the root of it all? What could be the tie the binds? What is really going on in this world? What are the rules?

By this middle of season 3 the show was a hit, but answers were no where in sight. More and more imponderables appeared. The episodes didn't illuminate the plot. The creators were just digging themselves a deeper hole. Tantalizing turned into tedious. I stopped watching. As the seasons went on, I stopped caring.

I got caught up in the cultural moment and curious about how they would wrap it all up. I returned for the Lost finale on Sunday. It was not impressive.

As a TV consumer, I would be perfectly happy to be the blind man groping at a misleading portion of the elephant. I want the misdirection. But there has to be greater whole. There needs to be an elephant. The creators need to know it's contours. The audience can be left guessing, but the clues need to be clues to something (however preposterous). But if you're the creator of a mystery that you're teasing and stretching out over years (which, come to think of it, I am) then you, the author, better know what is going on in your story.

I'll call bullshit on Lost. There was no plan. There were no reasons. They just threw one thing after another on the screen. Once in a while, they made some sort of ad hoc, after-the-fact attempt to explain some portion of what had come before.

That's not a mystery. It's a waste of time.

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Building a Better BioWare Game

The search for Kasumi's stolen memory has brought me back to Mass Effect 2 and back to the topic of stories in video games. I've been bemoaning the limitations of video games. BioWare, the studio behind Mass Effect and other excellent games, has been pushing against those limitations. In this post I'll take a look at the BioWare approach to game design.

I want to be able to shape a story in two different ways. I want be able to influence the plot and I want to be able to influence, and be influenced by, the characters.

BioWare provides some illusion of plot control, but this is limited. You have missions and objectives. You can skip some missions and have options regarding the order you'll undertake them. But the story is their story. Most players will end up doing the same things.

We're a long ways away from (and may never see) a game world where the consequences of all your choices have real ripple effects. The studios have a story to tell you and they don't want you to ruin it. There aren't an infinite number of writers devising an infinite number of exciting paths to follow. But they could, and should, design a few inflection points where you have real choices and deal with the consequences. Some of those consequences should be dire. The game should let you screw up and force you to fight your way back.

It's amazing BioWare games are as good as they are given the limitations of their engine. Most glaring is the absence of characters that can move outside of cut-scenes and combat. BioWare worlds are populated by people rooted to a single spot. Some mobile bystanders would make the worlds less sterile.

The engine limitations are also apparent in the combat missions. But some of the limitations maybe be just limitations of imagination. Mass Effect does a reasonable job of presenting some tactical variety and variation to its firefights and action sequences. But far too many missions devolve into corridor crawls. You move from one conveniently-placed spot of cover to another. Enemies pop-up, four at at time, to be dispatched with biotic blasts and head-shots.

Every mission should have some wrinkles. Some options:

• Have enemies approach from all directions
• Take away some or all of your weapons
• Add non-combatants to be saved or imperiled
• Have swarms of enemies
• Have stand-off situations where combat can be avoided or risked
• Neutralize powers
• Add time constraints
• Use 3-dimensions with enemies coming from above and below
• Undertake missions alone with 1 or 3+ companions.
• Go without Shepard
• Tactical retreats where escape is the only option
• More environmental dangers and effects
• Reduce visibility
• Deal with character injury and limitation
• Enemies that can't or shouldn't be killed and must be trapped or evaded
• Take away the cover
• Limit or remove ammunition
• Limit or remove medi-gel

These variations can be mixed and matched for even more variety.

The old BioWare injury model is overdue for redesign. Your companions go down in a hail of blaster fire. Wherever you are, you push a button, lose a dollop of the mysterious medi-gel and your friends bounce back. Even if you can't be bothered with the medi-gel administration, as soon as the last enemy in the room falls, everyone immediately gets up suffering no ill-effects from taking those mass-accelerated metal slugs to the face.

This model lacks a certain verisimilitude. It also lacks drama. It would more interesting if Shepard had to play medic, fight her way over to the injured companion, and apply the medicine in person. After their revival, downed characters should suffer a bit -- make them sit out a few missions in sick-bay while they recuperate.

When Shepard takes a hit players are treated to the old Game Over screen. Mass Effect should never show a game over or reload screen. They are tired, drama draining, and unnecessary. What are space-faring friends for if not to help up a Shepard when she's down? Your companions could revive you. Or Shepard could be shown to summon the strength to apply her own medi-gel. Or team members from the mother-ship could come bail you out. Or you you could fail. Very few of the Mass Effect missions are essential to the core plot. Letting you fall short on a few and face the consequences would be more interesting than the string of endless do-overs and successes.

Game Over is a crutch. Players and designers lean on too much. It's time to throw it away.

BioWare has built its reputation on the strength of its characters and quality of your interactions with them. Good character interaction rests on three requirements:

• Characters that are interesting and fleshed-out enough to care about
• Having some ability to define and control the relationship between you and your companions
• Allowing your choices and actions to determine the fate of other characters

BioWare does a solid job with the first requirement. They've created a number of interesting and memorable characters over the years and are getting better at it with each release. Mass Effect 2 also allows you to have an impact on your relationship with you shipmates. More than any other game, you get to opportunity to explore their past, shape their destiny, and get them killed. But here again there is vast room for improvement.

The loyalty system is fun but should more flexible and less binary. Every action, choice, and conversation should make your various party members more or less loyal. And that loyalty should have a significant impact -- influencing how effective, aggressive, accurate, and helpful they are.

The inclusion of so many character-based missions is great for the game and an excellent device for developing the characters. I was saddened when one of my party members started to shun me. And Jack, you never gave me the chance to tell you this, but I'm sorry. I'm sorry I didn't confront Miranda about how Cerberus tortured you and made you a psychotic, biotic killer. That was wrong. And I'm sorry that big rock fell on your head during the cut-scene and killed you.

The character-based missions worked and I want more of them. Every mission should have one or more characters volunteer to take part. Including the ones who step forward might be optional, but would offer the opportunity for extra dialogue, scripted awesomeness, and heroic sacrifice.

BioWare is notorious for their in-game romantic options. I was torn. Do I choose the bland but anatomically compatible Jacob or grizzled Garrus. In my heart of hearts, do I go for the black guy or the green guy? Garrus won me over and the inter-species liaison was handled with remarkable tact, humor and affection.

I want to explore a deeper relationship with all the characters. Offering a few romanceables should be just the beginning. Every relationship should have a next level. And there should be more variety. I want jealous rivals, greedy high-maintenance mercenaries, subtle betrayers, zealots following their own agenda, moral beacons, reliable right-hands, jilted lovers, and manulative lotharios.

These relationships shouldn't just be incidental to the game but central to it. BioWare's given us a tiny glimpse of the possibilities of character-driven computer games. I love them. Now it's time to take them to the next level.


Part of the Game Design Workshop series.

(GDW) Failure is Not an Option: Storytelling in Video Games

The only disappointing Christmas that I can recall is the year everyone got an Atari 2600 and I didn't. I think my mother still gets guilt pangs. She shouldn't. In the nearly 30 years since then I've more than made up for any lost hours of my youth that weren't spent staring at a flashing screen.


I was there at the birth of video games and never stopped playing. They retain their allure and continue to consume embarrassing amounts of my free time. Over the years the games have grown. I remember when moving around white blocks was the height of sophistication. Today characters can leap from rooftop to rooftop and freely explore a simulation of 15th century Florence modeled in astonishing scope and detail.

As the technology has improved video games have started to come into their own as a storytelling medium. Their promise is that these are interactive stories. Rather than just observing the story unfold you can inhabit the character. You are the hero.

Interactivity is the secret to the magic of video game stories. It is also its bane. The author of a book or film has complete control over their protagonist. The hero follows the author's arc without fail. Video game designers walk a fine line between telling the story they wish to tell and giving the player freedom to steer their own path.

The task of the game designer is further complicated by the limitations of technology and the complexity of human relationships. Entire cities can be modeled and populated with all manner of objects and individuals. But actually establishing a non-trivial relationship between the inhabitants of this virtual world is more difficult. Worlds can be simulated. People are much harder.

The byproduct of this constraint is that designers typically choose points A and B and constrain players to deciding how dispatch the hordes of enemies found in between. The questions of whether and why they journey is taken is out of the players hands-- as is the relationship between the player and characters met along the way. The player controls the action but not the plot. Love, revenge, betrayal, hope, fear, loss and growth may be components of the story. Rarely can they be chosen or avoided. They are simply watched.

In most every game you are called upon to perform some heroics and save the day. A good game will work to set the stakes and ratchet up the tension. Inevitably, failure in not a option. And this is literally true. The story and scenes progress until all adversity has been overcome. When you fail, you go back and do it again until you succeed. Boredom, frustration, tedium, and abandoning the story to go do something else are all options. Failure is not an option. A good game will end with enough spectacle to create a sense of accomplishment. But since perseverance was the only criteria, victory feels hollow.

The idea of interactive stories holds immense promise. I spend so much time with computer games because even the limited interactions of games have a powerful allure that non-interactive media such as books, movies, and television can't match. But I recognize the older forms as vastly superior storytelling mediums. For now.

Some game designers are pushing against the medium's limitations for character and story development. They endeavor, within the structure of the game and hero's journey, to include options and questions of morality, romance, friendship, and loss. In my next post I'll look at what the best of them are doing and explore how to do it better.


Part of the Game Design Workshop series.