| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (20)

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 8:29AM Nahalmyt said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I still like Final Fantasy XI's region system where the players weren't face to face opposing one another, but moreso required each other in order to progress through the game, but always wanted to be ahead of the other regions. It would also be neat to see how the influence of the countries would change and allow you to adventure to different parts of the world in order to gain the benefits of being in an area your region has control of.

All of this and on top of that, the system has a sort of rewards program in which you can earn points by wearing your region's signet to get neat powerful items and experience boosts, providing you with benefits for your endeavors of representing your region.

I forgot to mention, each region has its own storyline and quests, too... They did a REALLY good job on this aspect of the game.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 9:06AM Horsebird said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The lore and music of FFXI were great. But the game itself is just not fun. Not on release, and not now. FFXIV would be better if only it had an AH.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 8:30AM Bramen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I enjoy Eve online's political system.
Although I am looking forward to seeing how TERA pulls theirs off. It could be really good and win me over. It sounds like the Warlord (If that's what they are calling it) will be in charge over the entire zone. And he or she will be able to say whether or not it is an open pvp zone or strictly a pve zone. Sounds like the political factions are dividing already lol.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 9:30AM Lateris said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I really liked the diplomacy system that Vanguard implemented.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 10:04AM Valdur said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Vanguard diplomacy system.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 10:08AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Eve

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 10:27AM Utakata said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can tell you my least favorite....which is the /vote kick feature in WoW.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 11:02AM DarkWalker said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
In a nutshell, I don't trust fellow players to decide what is fun for me.

So, any system where other players could potentially make my gameplay not fun results in me leaving the game as soon as that chance becomes noticeable.

BTW, this applies not only to political systems, but to group content, open PvP, crafting, etc; if it looks like I would depend on the goodwill of other players (including for refraining from things they might enjoy, such as ganking) to reach my objectives and have fun, I usually leave the game. I don't trust other players to do anything that doesn't benefit themselves, and I don't put my fun in the hands of anyone I don't trust.

(On the other hand, if some developer actually found a way to make it be in the player's best, selfish interest to actually help the community and make the game more fun for other players, I would be much more willing to accept player-driven government in that game.)

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 11:08AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@DarkWalker
This in a nutshell. I despise real world politics and in game ones can only get worse with anonymous internet asshattery.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 12:26PM real65rcncom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Vanguard.

The Alliance system was really good, you could change factions by killing enough of your enemies (or their allies) and they had the Diplomacy card system which was fun too.

Even could wear Diplomatic gear that helped in the game that you could quest or crafters could make.

Best thing I've seen to date.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 12:55PM NeverDeath said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@real65rcncom

Vanguard's singular redeeming quality. Lol. But I agree.
Reply

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 1:11PM Kalex716 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nexus TK's

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 1:13PM Degu said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't mess with anything that has a complex political system. I'm not a assertive guild leader type, so I'll just end up at the bottom and have my fate dictated by players I don't even know. Even the bare-bones realm war in Warhammer worked out that way for me.

Vanguard diplo does sound like a cool side-game, but I've never tried it.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 1:29PM hereafter said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I love hearing stories of intrigue and subterfuge in Eve. And knowing that it's all player-driven makes it so much more compelling. Unfortunately, I'll never get into it since my schedule wouldn't really allow for that game's steep learning curve or formidable time investment. (I have a few hours each night at best and I'd prefer to be active. I'll play through Escape Velocity a few more times before I consider Eve).

In a game like that, it's perfect. But for themeparks, I prefer having the politics be controlled by the devs. Usually they're telling some sort of story with the balance of power in the world and letting that shift based on player whims makes it seem shallow in a way. For instance, if two factions are on the brink of war, it would be out-of-place for their territory to keep changing hands. Because that's called open war. If a game wants to have a feature like that where land can change hands based on player actions, devs need to write a story where it makes sense.

But it should also be meaningful. Contested territory is cool, but it's not really any more dynamic if you think about it. It's just an illusion since its contested status is persistent. Instead of being owned by one faction, it has some PvP objectives that change the flags based on who captures them. This is definitely a nice feature to have in the right context, but as such, its existence is dependent on the story of that area.

Then again, that's more of a military consideration than a political one, so I might have been on a tangent there.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 1:51PM Fabius Bile said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
L2 alliance systems figthing over castles

oh god how I miss the golden years, Aden was our private party for months

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 2:11PM bonkbonks said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'd say the bigger and more involving the better.

All the player driven non-combat nonsense is the reason MMO's stand out, the reason I at least get interested in them. It's where they fit.

The political stuff is something else that makes the MMO look very different from say your average online go shoot people game like Quake, Counter, MW, and the player interaction makes it different from any standard RPG where it's all predictable.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 6:05PM Graill440 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
There is no political system in any MMO to date, the mechanics are simply not there, its a vote by guild size, nothing more.

Posted: Jun 28th 2011 6:12PM Killerham said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Puzzle Pirates. As long as it has a population lol.

Posted: Jun 29th 2011 3:55AM EvaliaMagic said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
A Tale in the Desert! Real Democracy in an MMO - basically anything that the coders can manage to do you can vote to make law in Egypt :D Every citizen can vote on the issues that matter!

Posted: Aug 25th 2011 8:07PM Lumin said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I hate politics in games. Any system where another player can walk all over you and make your play experience miserable/inferior due to their in-game popularity or influential power is a bad design in my book.

Even something as simple as the top players cross-realming with each other in Aion was enough to really put a damper on my enjoyment of the game.

Featured Stories

WRUP: WildStar's sadface

Posted on Oct 25th 2014 10:00AM

Betawatch: October 18 - 24, 2014

Posted on Oct 24th 2014 8:00PM

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW