Firefall review

So I recently had the opportunity to try out Firefall and I must say that for a free to play game it was very impressive.  I liked the ability to swap out battleframes, which is very similar to the idea I have for switching roles.  There was a definite PvE (player vs environment) push, with PvP(player vs player) being almost an afterthought.  The PvP matches were basically 5v5 team deathmatch style with the possibility of 10 v 10 on different maps, but there is not the persistent open world pvp I was kind of hoping would be there.  There are a kind of simple tower defense type situation where you and your squad defend a thumper (a type of mining device) from wave after wave of overgrown bugs and other mutated wildlife, which provides a challenge of it's own.  Finally there is the Chosen, who are evil incarnate NPC (non player characters) who come to take over watchtowers and generally make life difficult.  Some of them are quite powerful, leaving me roasted a many a time as I tend to walk around alone.  Even so I was able to take out dozens of them single handed, and I'm sure that even with improved AI players will eventually figure out way's to kill them easily.

As for what I would hope to see,  I would say that player controlled chosen would make the game very interesting.  That way large scale open world pvp could be realized, though that also introduces some problems as to how would tech and other items work.  That and if you have the "good" side and the "bad" side developers often will unconsciously favor the good side.

Product vs Service

As I continue to study the art of game creation I came across an interesting and thought provoking concept, that we are moving away from games as a product to games as a service.  I certainly would say that I hope to create a system for the latter, but I suppose I should explain the differences before I go into that.

In the past games were required to be in a complete state (meaning completely coded, put into a package to be sold in retail outlets, etc..) before they got to the consumer.  Often once it had shipped the developers would no longer have anything to do with the product other than wait for one of two outcomes, success and the opportunity to make more games or rejection by the masses which usually meant the end of said game development company.  With every "product" shipped there was a definite gamble,  and since publishers who were funding the product from the inception and who also are very concerned with making a profit were pretty much in control, any failure to produce said profit was a death sentence to any game developer who didn't perform well.

Now switch to games as a service.  MMO's are a great example of how this mindset works.  A game is created and then costumers are brought in before the game is complete (usually in beta) and they give feedback as to what they would like to see in the game as a finished product.  The thing is that the game is never really finished, as things keep getting added on.  Costumers also don't do the one time purchase as in the other model, rather they pay on an ongoing basis either through subscription costs or via micro-transactions.  The game developer and the consumer then have this continual relationship where there are feedback loops and opportunities for creating an experience that players enjoy and game developers are happy to provide.  It also means that game developers are able to work with a product long after it has reached the hands of the consumer.

I think the second option has a better chance of creating communities around a game, and also gives developers a chance to polish and work out games to become the very best that they can.  I look forward to the change in paradigms that is already occurring.