GAME JOBS
Contents
Beyond MUDs: Kate Flack on Designing Ultima Forever
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
June 6, 2013
 
Red Storm Entertainment, a Ubisoft Studio
Assistant/Associate Producer
 
Wargaming.net
Build Engineer
 
Gameloft - New York
Programmer
 
Wargaming.net
Build Engineer
 
Virdyne Technologies
Unity Programmer
 
Wargaming.net
Dev-Ops Engineer
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
June 6, 2013
 
Tenets of Videodreams, Part 3: Musicality
 
Free to Play: A Call for Games Lacking Challenge
 
Cracking the Touchscreen Code [1]
 
10 Business Law and Tax Law Steps to Improve the Chance of Crowdfunding Success
 
Deep Plaid Games, one year later
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief:
Kris Graft
Blog Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Mike Rose, Kris Ligman
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
Education:
Gillian Crowley
 
Contact Gamasutra
 
Report a Problem
 
Submit News
 
Comment Guidelines
 
Blogging Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  Beyond MUDs: Kate Flack on Designing Ultima Forever
by Brandon Sheffield [Design, Interview, Social/Online]
7 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
February 8, 2013 Article Start Page 1 of 3 Next
 

Ultima has gone through many incarnations since the series' 1981 debut. It was also one of the first major series to tackle the idea of the consequences of a player's actions, good or ill, affecting the story. In 1997, the series took a turn for the massively multiplayer, with Ultima Online. In 1999, the world got a polygonal facelift, with Ultima IX: Ascension. In 2010, Ultima went free-to-play, with Lord of Ultima, though that game was only loosely tied to the original Ultima universe. Lord was the first game without the series' creator, Richard Garriott, and reception was mixed thanks to that -- and the player base's skepticism of a free-to-play model.

Now, in 2013, the series takes another stab at free-to-play, with Ultima Forever: Quest for the Avatar, which takes the world of Ultima IV and adapts it for an action RPG context, with hand-drawn backgrounds and 3D characters. The game is currently in development by BioWare Mythic Entertainment, under the eye of general manager Paul Barnett, and the direction of lead designer Kate Flack.



Flack has a history with MUDs, primarily, and it's this history into which we will now delve, to discuss how early MUDs have influenced MMO design, even today. Beyond that, how do the virtue systems of Ultima work in this new free-to-play space, and with casual players? We spoke at length with Flack about her history, and how that will intertwine with the upcoming Ultima Forever.

Let's talk first about your history, for people who don't know...

Kate Flack: Sure. I've been working in the industry for just over a decade now. I got my start when all this was text, by making MUD games, so I was paid by the word writing quests and creating monsters, that kind of thing.

I then went into pen and paper roleplaying. I did the second edition of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying. I wrote Dark Heresy, which was the Warhammer 40,000 roleplaying game, with Owen Barnes and Robert Schwalb, and a couple of other really awesome designers, so I kind of got a bit of experience taking a beloved IP and bringing it to a new audience or reimagining it in a way. After I did that, I moved over to Mythic and worked on Warhammer Online. I was also involved in the first Warhammer Online, which was done by Climax Entertainment. Since then, I've been working at BioWare Mythic, building this game.

Did you find it at all difficult to translate from working so heavily with text to this simultaneously more and less interactive arena, where you don't have as much possibility space as you do in a MUD or a tabletop game?

KF: In a MUD, you have a wonderful realm of imagination; there's so much stuff you can get away with. In a way, it's almost a more pure design. You're not having to interface with an art department; you're not having to worry about coders. But the thing with something like Ultima Forever, or Warhammer, or these more graphical MMOs, is that they're much more accessible. It's the way the industry's going. Although personally I enjoy things like Christine Love's Digital: A Love Story, I know there's not a huge audience for those types of games. Of course you have to go with the graphical angle; of course you have to make them look good, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Do you think that there's anything aside from perhaps superior writing ability that you take from that world to bring to this?

KF: Well, the first MUD started -- this is going to get really nerdy and technical, so just bear with me.

That's perfectly acceptable.

KF: If we look at nearly all of the big graphical MMOs out there, they're based on a DikuMUD code base, which has certain inherent principles within it. For example, let's talk about quests, right? In an MMO, we have this idea that you have to be on a quest; it has to be sitting inside your quest log before you can go fulfill it. If a man wants you to go kill five wolves, it doesn't matter that you [already] just killed five wolves; now you're on the quest, you have to go off, and you have to collect the wolf paws, because that's all that DikuMUD can detect at the time.

But the games I was playing and writing on were European MUD engines with completely different basic assumptions within them. For example, Legends of Terris, which is the first MUD I worked on, would log every single thing that you killed just as a matter of course. You could pull up your kill list and inspect what you'd killed and all these different things.

So when you were doing a quest, very often, you'd get to there and the NPC would say, "Hey! Kill me white wolves!" and then it would detect, oh, you've already done that; here's the quest credit. Why should you have to go off and do it all over again? It's just a simple example of how a difference in engine can make a difference in gameplay. It's that experience; it's a way of playing that doesn't necessarily have the same assumptions underlying them. It gives you a breadth of background and heritage that you can pull from. Just because it's always been done that way doesn't mean I have to do it the same way in Ultima Forever.

 
Article Start Page 1 of 3 Next
 
Top Stories

image
Keeping the simulation dream alive
image
Q&A: With Neverwinter inbound, Cryptic founds Seattle studio
image
A 15-year-old critique of the game industry that's still relevant today
image
Advanced audio streaming in Unity
Comments

Michael Joseph
profile image
"I have never experienced that, but I have always thought it would be possible to have a moment where I really have to make a choice that I care about. But for me it's never occurred. I guess my brain has always just defaulted to whatever good path is offered.... I always presume that the game is created in such a way that I'm not going to be punished for a good deed;"
--

This reminds me of Heavy Rain where your character is presented with the option of murdering a bad guy to help save his son. Faced with this decision, the player invariably jumps back behind the fourth wall and starts weighing their options in terms of the game and not in terms of the morality or the emotions of the situation. Murdering the bad guy makes you feel like you would be losing the game somewhat or otherwise not playing as perfectly as you could.

Perhaps this is one of the problems with heavy handed narrative games where the player is asked to be someone else rather than to be what they want to be. It's counter intuitive perhaps that being asked to role play a character that is designed for you makes it harder to role play. You just end up trying to do things that stays true to the character. The character never really becomes an extension of yourself or an alter ego.

In other words, playing a character is not the same as role playing. I think it goes back to what Tadhg Kelly was saying in his excellent article.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/173819/on_player_characters_and_self_.php?
page=4

Joshua Oreskovich
profile image
I think the problem lies in not presenting enough real world logic to these contrivances. I think a lot of it has to do with the conventions developed around video game stylization like the 3 answer rule, which is the largest problem.

all 3 answers as likely as not aren't going to be a good representation of what you would like to see done in this instance, so it kills the connection to the doll or situation (the other biggy is hyperfocus on skills 99% of those being combat related). Even if you can relate in a distant manner and choose a path that "most represents what you like"
(like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator)

The problem is ~testing like this is ambivilent, I've found. And instead of testing you and your core interests, it pigeon-holes you into a typecast, of what you just ate for lunch and the last good book you read.

The best choice games are the ones that allow you to really explore the problem and allow for as much latitude in behavior as possible to direct a solution.

2 games in my mind (that I have played) have done this the best are Kotor and DE:HR, I think you can go with a more directed narrative if the goal is amiable .. like FF7 .. but you have to be very careful.

"In other words, playing a character is not the same as role playing."

I think this might be a misleading argument, I am certain you can empathize/project with a single character or even several characters and npc's at the same time. And at the same time also play characters that are not a true projection of anything of what you might really do.

eg I may greatly respect and trust Obi wan Kenobi on Tatooine, but think rightly his falling off the map was not truly trusting in the force, or doing the right thing .. but cowardly. Nonetheless I empathize with his disposition, and still whole-heartedly support his actions because he is doing "the good thing", even if it's a poor choice (and I think it's especially implicit to demonstrate this diversion from actual player prerogative) ... and there may be several characters that are likewise are varying shades of good/neutral/evil that I may recognize and truly connect with ... but I think it comes back to the base logic.

Obi wan is good because he is willing to sacrifice himself, if placed in similar situation and more forced contrivances the situation changes completely. Obi Wan is doing something because he is forced to, and has no options .. which is ludicrous because we know Obi Wan is jedi with great power at his disposal.

this can be a fun character to play, and even see to it's fruition, but when the situation logic fails eg if Obi Wan had no control over his surroundings .. the idea completely loses sense.

I think strong narrative is still however the most successful, because it directly delivers a message ... even if that message is "contrived commercial mainstream puke", it also has the opportunity to say something more than simple materialistic contrasting .. like with Minecraft, Terraria, Tetris ect.

ps. I really like Tadgh Kelly's blog, but even moreso I liked the clarification of Michael Curtiss at the bottom who I think demonstrates well the problem with Tadgh's modality argument.

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TaekwanKim/20130206/186188/Designin g_Mechanical_N
arratives_Part_2.php#comment187933

This also touches on the problem of narrative as well. And I think this again points at making sure the logic, is actually logical.

Joshua Oreskovich
profile image
I think also (to keep blabbering) does this mean then that playing Mario is poor use of narration, and I think no because Mario is seen as different. I think the line in the sand starts at the point where the interactive design starts asking the "who" question. Who are you? What is your name? What do you think?

I think also here this again becomes very problematic is with multiplayer games that are "mix and mingling" narrative ideas, especially so-called roleplaying ideas that are not just confusing narrative with social space but the narrative itself is unjustly contrived.

Whereas with AD&D you could really pick how to approach any obstacle or situation, and instead of the social space fighting that as it almost always does in mmorpg's it actually has the malleability to set the stage accordingly ~with strong narrative.

Joshua Oreskovich
profile image
One more blabbering, I think also narrative becomes confused when too many strings are being played .. so where you are playing a perfectly mindless ... war game that asks no questions directly they really are indirectly through materistic questionaires becoming quite personal .. and I think even with materistic choice .. like making statement "favorite weapon" by equatiing times used or some other mathematical formula they are really underhandedly talking directly to the player here.

Where on the front you might play Battlefield 3, an it's a completely detached simple narrative ~ kill the other guy .. it's really putting you there through a great deal of second hand logic .. to a point where morality does in fact play a role in the distinctions you make even if all the answers are benign simply by statement of fault in materistic emphasis ... "I am doing this therefore I agree with these actions" .. a sort of unguarded backdoro to the psyche I believe.

Michael Mullins
profile image
I am so very very ready for design like this. It's nice in some ways to have diminishing ROI for pure technical advances and to have re-ignition of design concepts from the 80s and 90s. We're finally giving ourselves (players, developers, the whole community) permission to begin iterating and thinking deeply about all these unfinished threads. I'm excited.

Carsten Germer
profile image
I love concepts like virtues, positive/negative reinforcement etc. in multiplayer games. Being a fan of "Ultima" from thee olden times, I always thought this is one thing that distinguishes the series.
Trying to implement mechanics and consequences like this in a multiplayer environment, though ... just from the description in this interview I see possibilities of loops an holes. Players will try to exploit every mechanic to find an optimal strategy, even if it's not "fair".
I am looking forward to see how it will be done in Ultima Forever, sign me up ;-)

Joshua Darlington
profile image
Virtue as one metric? - Or something like Spenser's Faerie Queene?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Faerie_Queene

"A letter written by Spenser to Sir Walter Raleigh in 1590[3] contains a preface for The Faerie Queene, in which Spenser describes the allegorical presentation of virtues through Arthurian knights in the mythical "Faerieland". Presented as a preface to the epic in most published editions, this letter outlines plans for 24 books: 12 based each on a different knight who exemplified one of 12 "private virtues", and a possible 12 more centered on King Arthur displaying 12 "public virtues". Spenser names Aristotle as his source for these virtues, although the influence of Thomas Aquinas can be observed as well. It is impossible to predict what the work would have looked like had Spenser lived to complete it, since the reliability of the predictions made in his letter to Raleigh is not absolute, as numerous divergences from that scheme emerged as early as 1590, in the first Faerie Queene publication.

In addition to these six virtues, the Letter to Raleigh suggests that Arthur represents the virtue of Magnificence, which ("according to Aristotle and the rest") is "the perfection of all the rest, and conteineth in it them all"; and that the Faerie Queene herself represents Glory (hence her name, Gloriana). The unfinished seventh book (the Cantos of Mutability), appears to have represented the virtue of "constancy.""


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Tech