Slashdot Mirror
MMORPGs - Societies or Games?
Talrias writes "The Community Manager of Codemasters' forthcoming PC MMORPG, Dragon Empires, has written an article over at Stratics about whether MMORPGs are designed as societies or as games, and uses the examples of the two big MMORPGs, Ultima Online (which he claims 'embodied this society design philosophy' when it launched) and EverQuest (which, it's suggested, 'most embodies the game design approach')."
Neither.
They're digital crack and cash cows for the companies that make them.
I work with a couple of Everquest freaks; they talk about nothing but Everquest, play it in a daze for most of the day, but rarely do they actually seem to enjoy themselves. Mostly they either say "$&*( I lost experience / got killed / etc." or "ok now we gotta get to this next thing so we can do that thing," but "fun" doesn't seem to be involved anywhere.
So game? Technically, I suppose, but not the kind that's, you know, fun or enjoyable. Society? Don't make me laugh.
Most MMORPGs have little to no content, and 'teamwork' is a only effected in small random groups that rarely represent the average MMORPG player. MMORPGs are essentially chat rooms with ogres and +5 axes.
as much as many people want them to be. Why? No government.
The authorative figures in these games tend to be mindless drones of NPC's that MIGHT talk to you if you click on them, but will say the exact same thing to everyone else.
Many people will think that a society is based on trade or crafting, but really its a government that ties it all together. I really wish I could get the king of Midgard to gather all our forces and kick ass, but it isn't gonna happen, because people (well, sane people with jobs) dont have the time to get on a game every time the game "needs" them.