Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 31, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 31, 2014
PR Newswire
View All

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

Interview: Blizzard's Afrasiabi On  WoW 's  Cataclysm -ic Expansion
Interview: Blizzard's Afrasiabi On WoW's Cataclysm-ic Expansion Exclusive
September 24, 2009 | By Chris Remo

September 24, 2009 | By Chris Remo
More: Console/PC, Exclusive

Blizzard's most recently-announced World of Warcraft expansion, Cataclysm, is said to radically alter nearly every part of the game's world, which makes it the perfect game for the studio to show off its storytelling chops.

Cataclysm's lead world designer Alex Afrasiabi says that over the game's five-year history, Blizzard has learned a great deal about how to convey information to the player using less text, in service of the well-worn advice "show, don't tell."

For example, one of Blizzard's most crucial storytelling tools, phasing -- a system by which a particular player's perception of the game world differs from that of other players based on his or her accomplishments in the game -- was the inadvertent result of a simple bug fix.

Gamasutra sat down with Afrasiabi to discuss Cataclysm's extensive scope, how Blizzard prioritizes content development, and how a bug fix became a game design linchpin.

I imagine "lead world designer" is a particularly involved role in the new expansion, since it seems to be the most significant redesign of existing World of Warcraft content yet. Is that the case?

Alex Afrasiabi: Oh, absolutely. You might go so far as to say any MMO ever, for an expansion.

I would say every zone in the old world is hit one way or another at varying degrees, from complete redos like Darkshore and Azshara, to moderate questing changes like Feralas, to moderate redos of the terrain and the quests, to light -- but even "light" is debatable -- [modification] in Loch Modan. Every zone is hit by this cataclysm to some degree.

The cataclysm starts out with rumbles, and what those rumbles are are the stirrings of Deathwing beneath the world. He's in this elemental plane of earth locked away in Deepholm. When he finally breaches into terrestrial Azeroth, it causes that gaping wound on the surface of the world -- a cataclysmic shockwave that hits pretty much everything. It's Deathwing, the world-breaker, who is the chief source of this destruction.

So you've got that lore. But how do you determine from a development standpoint how to translate that into design, asset production, writing, and so on? How do you determine what areas are higher-priority for more extensive recreation?

AA: I don't want to say we play it by ear, because we really don't. We know our game really, really well. We've had a lot of time now -- five years, more really -- in development to hone our skills. Each expansion, in my eyes, gets progressively better. We become better designers of the content. We understand what the players want from our quests and our content, and we try to provide that.

We really know our game very well, and that includes [level] one to 60 [zones]. The first thing we did when we set out to do this was prioritize. You basically get that big list of zones, and you give them that -- "This [zone] is a five, the worst. This is just a mess." Like Darkshore. And then, "This [zone] is a one. Moderate work." We basically make this huge prioritized list, and then go through it.

Other mitigating factors come into play, of course. What do you do with Silithus? It's a [level] 55-to-60 zone in this expansion. Is it as relevant? We almost have to triage the zones. We know what our production schedule is roughly -- I'm not going to tell you what that is [laughs].

But we have to triage the zones. A zone like Silithus is probably not the best of zones right now. I'd go on to say it's actually pretty bad. It's not as important a zone like Azshara. So it will probably get less of the treatment, because the people who reach that point are probably going to somewhere else at that point [anyway]. It's not as important as Aziara, which is now a [level] 10-to-20 zone for the Horde. That absolutely was terrible before, and now it's got to be amazing.

So as you said, you guys have been doing this for well over five years now, and you've learned a lot. What are some of the things you've learned about MMO design, particularly when it comes to conveying story in an integrated, interesting way?

AA: The most important one, I think, and this is just from sitting at meetings -- any new guys who come in, they always have that urge to tell their story. "I'm going to tell this amazing story. It's going to make you weep when you read it."

That's when I stop them right there. I'm like, "Stop right there. Nobody's going to read whatever you're trying to do. It could be the greatest thing since Hemingway. Nobody cares. Nobody cares. Nobody's going to read it." You have to take a different approach, and you show the player that.

It's the old adage: show, don't tell. You show them. It's a different world. That's when you're starting down the right path.

When we first started doing this, sure we knew it, but we didn't understand it. There's a difference, and it only really comes from practice. It's almost a zen thing with the quest guys at this point, where it's a [matter of] "Do this quest without any text." Just blindfolded. "Do this quest, and let's see if I even know what's going on. Create something. What's going on? Can I tell if I'm entering this room or entering a point of interest? What am I looking at? What is happening?"

I think that's improved our design vastly over the years. Of course, we're still going to have text, but we're not dependent on it. As we advance our technology, too, with quest map [points of interest] and things like that, we'll become less dependant on it. Because right now, what we use it for is as a means of direction.

Certainly, we will provide story and lore when we can, but we want to provide that in the actual act of doing the quest. The one thing we still can't decouple from it is directions -- where do you go? But we're getting there.

That's certainly something MMOs struggle with -- are people going to bother with the text? It seems like with Cataclysm, that's got to be almost the whole point of the expansion almost. A huge part of the experience as the player is seeing how everything has changed. Can you talk about any design tools or methods you use to strive for that?

AA: Absolutely. It's actually interesting. Initially, we created phasing as a bug fix. It was used to fix a bug with the Blade's Edge quest. That was it. Case closed, right? There was this bug, we couldn't solve the problem, and one of our programmers -- a brilliant guy -- implemented this system. Nobody thought twice about it.

[Expansion pack] Wrath [of the Lich King] rolls around, and we're in early alpha. We're getting feedback from the team, and one of my friends on the team is talking to me about [the] Howling Fjord [zone], and he's irate. He's saying, "I can't believe this. I go into [capital city] Valgarde, and I keep getting trained by these [native enemies] Vrykul. I killed them, and I did the quest. Why do I keep running into them?"

It seems really kind of innocuous. "Yeah, of course. That's how the game works. There's an event playing out. Even though you've done the quest, these events don't stop." But that's kind of what got me to start to more seriously approach it. It was almost a blow to the gut. I was aware of it. It was almost a challenge at that point. How could we change the world for the player so that it actually dynamically alters, so they can actually say, "I did take that quest to kill those Vrykul, and once I did that, guess what? They're gone. They're no longer there."

That was all the fire that was needed. From there, it was experimentation. It's funny. If you really break down how Lich King went, the way we tackled zones, we did Howling Fjord, Borean Tundra, and Dragonblight, in that order essentially, during development. Once you get to Dragonblight, you start seeing some of those effects. You start seeing a lot of invisibility -- not phasing -- because at the time, that phasing thing still hadn't clicked. But you start seeing more and more of it. When you get into Wintergarde, you rescue captives or villagers first. Once you bring them into town, the town actually changes.

After that, we went onto [the then-new] Death Knight [class], and it was almost a proof of concept at that point. How can we do this? This obscure bug fix just popped up. We were thinking, "What about that? Could that work?" Sure enough, we did a quick run through with a test, went through from one phase to the next, and we said, "Wait a minute. This actually did change, and it totally worked. Okay. We might have something here."

From there, phasing was born, essentially, in its current [form]. It became a great tool for us, to be able to tell stories like the battle for the [Undead capital] Undercity. You go to [Orc capital] Orgrimmar, and it's completely phased out into another phase, and you have all these [undead] Forsaken refugees pouring in instantly. You don't need to read anything. You just look. Forsaken refugees are on the floor, begging you for help. The Horde are all rounded up. Shops are all closed -- just straight up just closed, can't use them. Guards direct you to the other cities. It's exciting. That was a big one.

So our tools have essentially gotten better. Using phasing is one example, but there are many advancements like that. Vehicles have taken a lot of flak -- some good, some bad. For things that are used for that the player never actually controls, they're actually a very powerful tool for us. An example of a vehicle is the Kologarn -- that's a boss where you have the arms separate from the body. Just using the vehicle tech, he's actually technically just one big vehicle with two passengers as his arms. Again, it allows us to tell this greater story. It's no longer just that boss -- his arm breaks off, and then his other arm breaks off. The technology is definitely improved, and it's helped us tremendously, I think.

Were you apprehensive at any point in taking something that was basically a bug fix, and resting so much of the game on it?

AA: Well, of course we're apprehensive. But the thing to me is that advances in our industry, and in Blizzard, don't necessarily stem from ideology. Ideology is a powerful thing, and it keeps us rooted. It keeps the foundation firm. But it's ingenuity and deviance, dare I say, that pushes you beyond that. So, you take something like this where it's just this thing for a bug fix and you deviate -- you say, "What if we can do something else with it?"

You have to push it. You have to. You have to chase it down and see where it goes. A lot of times, it is a dead end. You'll chase something down, and you're like, "Ah, it didn't work out. Too bad." But you have to push that bounds because otherwise, your game won't grow. That's that.

In that vein, people have criticized Blizzard at times for being a relatively conservative developer, design-wise. How would you respond to that?

AA: Well, like I said, we do have a very strong ideology. We are firm in our beliefs, and we won't release a game until it's done -- you've heard that said time and time again -- but we mean that. That implies a lot of things. So we'll certainly take the criticism for it, but I think in the end, the result is often great.

Related Jobs

Activision Publishing
Activision Publishing — Santa Monica, California, United States

Tools Programmer-Central Team
Vicarious Visions / Activision
Vicarious Visions / Activision — Albany, New York, United States

VFX Artist-Vicarious Visions
Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand

Level Designer
Magic Leap, Inc.
Magic Leap, Inc. — Wellington, New Zealand

Lead Game Designer


William Armstrong
profile image
It's a little sad that it took them 5 years to realize that players want the world to change to reflect their deeds. Heck, I can remember less than a year into the game's life hearing people complain that "No matter how many people bring back supplies, that bridge in Redridge never gets repaired. Why don't they make the bridge repaired after a bunch of people do the quest, and have another quest that lets the other faction blow it up?"

5 years later, that bridge in Redridge is still being built. Hopefully, cataclysm will complete it, or have a quest chain where you hunt down the former quest giver who has *clearly* been skimming materials off the top.

Gonzalo Daniel
profile image
One thing that has been bothering me of the recent expansions is that somehow, they are expanding the world but that new world doesnt have those mysterious zones that dont open and give more mysticism to the world per se and somewhat give a reason to go back to. Even if the zone is "dead" like darkshore, which is a "failure", it has the Masterīs Glaive that adds a lot to the lore and is a reason to go back and see after you kill Cīthun or Yogg Saron. This keeps the game cohesive lore-wise.

Scarab wall, Uldum, Timbermaw Hold, Grim Batol were really amazing and showed the magnitude of the game Blizzard wanted to deliver in a future. They all became links from the past to the present for players that have been playing since release. Now look at the Zones in Outland, not a single one that adds to the mysteries one would suppose the so talked Outland would have. And now the same happened to Northrend, and they even had to Biuld the crusaderīs coliseum to add to the scenery a context in which one can interact that wasnt there previously.

What I am afraid is that the Cataclysm will be an excuse to open the last places the original WoW delivered 5 years ago, and finish using all the places that are enigmatic to explorers instead of delivering more to keep us inmersed in this world that in theory has to be extremely ancient and rich. At the same time it could be a way to scar the land in a way that old places never seen before will open and add to the mystery that we all loved from the original wow.

Phasing is nice but is temporary, rich and enigmatic context lives more and delivers a richer experience.

Stephen Chin
profile image
The irony is that Auto Assault attempted this (phasing) by design. It was suppose to have the sort of evolving dynamic world (insofar as could be done with such things) where the world would seemingly move on because of player action.

Randle Reece
profile image
He seems awfully proud of a game element that is only mildly significant to people who play the game. Blizzard has turned WoW into a repeated 1-to-80 (or 55-to-80) race, with each major patch bringing a newly overpowered class for veteran players to level. The boosts to leveling speed far outweigh any changes in midlevel content. Declare victory on minor elements, while twisting themselves into a pretzel over class imbalances. "Cataclysm" appears to be a reboot of many bad decisions made for the Lich King xpac. All they have to do is keep the lemmings on board for another year or so.

Anton Pustovoyt
profile image
@William Armstrong

Funny enough, I saw a glimpse of that bridge being complete on a screenshot.

On topic

While I think it is great that world reflects my actions, it at same time ruins the game experience. How many times were you not annoyed that your friend is in same place as you, but in different phasing? I think their best approach was the AQ event, where world indeed reflected actions of the players, just on a more major scale, after a bigger effort.

Imho Blizzards issue is that they are trying to let everyone be a hero, and do all the heroic deeds by themselves. I would much more prefer that the said Vrykyl village changed after a month of people doing quests there, but changed for everyone.