Slashdot Mirror
Bartle to MMOG Players - Newbs!
Gamasutra (registration required) has begun running an excellent column called "Soapbox". The first article up on the site is penned by Richard Bartle, one of the gents who created MUD1. Why Virtual Worlds are Designed by Newbies [non-reg alternate] is a great look at the lessons of past games and the foibles of designing a new one. From the article: "Virtual worlds are being designed by know-nothing newbies, and there's not a damned thing anyone can do about it. I don't mean newbie designers, I mean newbie players - first timers. They're dictating design through a twisted "survival of the not-quite-fittest" form of natural selection that will lead to a long-term decay in quality, guaranteed."
The article has a summary:
Point #1: Virtual worlds live or die by their ability to attract newbies
Point #2: Newbies won't play a virtual world that has a major feature they don't like.
Point #3: Players judge all virtual worlds as a reflection of the one they first got into.
Point #4: Many players will think some poor design choices are good.
iCLOD Virtual City is based (remotely) on a real city. It is turn-based and time-based so that players won't be affected by different time zones and there are enough objectives to keep everybody occupied.
But like the article stated, it's pretty hard to keep everyone happy because they all want something in the virtual world to suit their abilities to win.
Additionally, newbies are always lost in the first instance they arrive in the city, so it requires a lot of tutorials and guides to get them settle in in order to introduce the real depth of the game to them.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
2+ ghz processor... check ... check ... check ... check .. check ... check ... Check?
$160 video card
17 inch monitor
512mb + of ram
Screamin' Soundcard
Highspeed cable modem
Telnet client
Conenction to MUD that's been running since 1990... CHECK?!
The implications are correct, the best games have been around for years, designed and maintained by old hands... and they're text-based.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Sorry but I had to laugh at this article. Newbies, real definition - players, are ruining mmorpgs with their demands.
Get real.
Many MMORPGs succeed. There are just many more that will not. This is not the fault of the players. What this ranter totally missed out on is the fact that players are no longer accepting excuses.
Look at Horizons, look at AC2, or look at original AO. Simply put, if you try to pull one over on the users you will get caught and they will punish you for it. Funcom made right, Turbine and Artifact Entertainment never did, those two deluded themselves into believing they were right and the players were the issue.
We no longer have to accept half-assed attempts because we have so many more choices. We are also seeing some big names getting ready to debut in this arena (well FF is already out) and it will prove that games that are developed by professionals (read: they don't have a preconception that they are godly - and they have expereience in writing WORKING software) can and will succeed.
Blaming the users, hell I am surprised he doesn't work for the Themis group.
While I am on MY soapbox. Here is one other thing that kills game, designers holding discussion sites hostage. This happens extensively on VN (IGN) boards as Turbine requires VN mods to remove messages that criticize Turbine or its people. Its good to know mods who can pass along policies, it provided a better insight into the reasons behind my problems with VN and those of others who went through similar abuse.
Combine with fake interviews where developers require questions to be preapproved, IRC chats that only cover inane questions, and you have many of the issues that cause games to fail.
In other words, its not the players, it never was.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
They're designing a world that allows for players to coexist and thus increase their revenue.
Highly competetive games, especially shooters, are always being outdated by newer games and technology. Why frag (or be fragged by,) someone in Quake II when you could frag someone in Unreal Tournament 2004.
At the same time, in order to be a top player in any of those games, you must have devoted a large amount of time to being good at it. Natural coordination and skill not with standing.
However, in these "newb" MMOG's that are less competetive, and allow for less dedicated or skillful players to still perform and play with the others, the designer's guarantee a player base which will migrate less easily. Thus, in the long run, increasing their revenue.
The aforementioned decay in quality is a side effect of this shift. But if you're not a power gamer, this decay might not be easily perceived for some time.
I think MUDs still have appeal to old schoolers because we grew up on the dos promp and the pong paddle. eye candy was when you got a balloon to move across the screen after 6 hours of typing Poke and Peek commands on your trusty C64. MUDs work, because they focus was a story. Deep, rich, and twisty. That was their only outlet for creativity. The visuals were left to your imagination. Pen and Paper D&D was/is the incarnation of the MUD. Every now and then, you will find a game that breaks the mold through and through, and resets the bar a notch higher. But those are rare, and more and more gamers are becoming more and more jaded in their expectations. A classic can be made in a week (ie. Bejeweled) and a bomb can take years to pop (ie Daikatana) so what do we know... Tastes are transient, technology moves on, but a good story is always a good story.
But I don't think the user is being blamed here; at least, that's not what I got from the article. It seemed more to me that the problem is that the game developers must respond in sometimes less-than-ideal ways to cope with market pressures. These pressures do come from the users, but it's not their fault. They're just consumers.
He suggests several ways of reacting in a way that is beneficial for the game as a whole, also; something no MMORPG has been good at (yet).
I played EQ for about four years before recently quitting; and many of the symptoms of decay Mr. Bartle enumerates are easy enough to see, at least in my experience with that game.
The author is guilty of exactly the same things that he blames the newbies for, and his arguments are anything but airtight.
1) Permanent Death. Okay, the author is convinced that permanent death is better. I'd like to see an example of a permanent-death game that did better than one that didn't have it? He can theorize all he likes that it's better for game design, but the simple fact is that nothing has yet shown that it in fact is.
2) Instancing. Again, the author is convinced that instancing is evil. A lot of people might agree. However, "instancing" is a very, very big concept. One can argue that the separate servers in mmorpgs are all "Instances", but that's hardly something most people would call particularly harmful. There's a whole range of instancing from one-person-per-instance to hundreds-per-instance.
The author never manages to show that he's doing anything more than what he accuses newbies of, since while he claims that there are things that are long-term-bad that he likes, he doesn't actually back up such assertions. Then, as above, his examples are ridiculously under-supported.
The ringing of the division bell has begun... -PF
The article has quite a few objectionable "truths". For example, permanent death might be nice for the economy and the world itself but it's f###ing frustrating for the player himself. MMOs are timesinks, to particxipate in the endgame you need to spend months as an average player. Losing all that progress because one day you overestimated yourself and got killed is REALLY frustrating.
Or teleporting. Sure, encouraging people to make new friends is nice but the main problem is that spending hours running from one point on the map to another just plain out isn't fun. Instancing is important because virtual worlds have an extreme overpopulation of adventurers and there just can't be enough dungeons for everybody (and even if, people would restrict themselves to two or three that give the best "loot").
Fun and world integrity don't always go hand in hand and instead of looking at things from a global perspective, try to look at how the player perceives the world because a bad perception will result in a bad reaction. Make sure the downtimes are short and the players have fun, fun should be the first goal of any game.
Many MMOs tend to neglect the beginning, pretty much telling you to work until you are someone. That's a harsh welcome. Why should I spend days to reach an adequate level in an MMO when there are games available that allow you to jump in and play? A game must be fun from t=0 if it wants to attract newbies.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Hrm.
On the one hand, he says that Instancing is an example of a short term good, long term bad design decision.
On the other hand, if you disagree with him on this, then it's clear that you're one of those players who can't recognise a bad design feature. Yet he fails to satisfactorily explain why Instancing is actually a bad design decision.
Nice argument there, Bartle.
I personally think Instancing is a good thing all round, if it's used wisely. City of Heroes does a good job there, and I can think of ways it could have been used effectively by other MMORPGs (Star Wars Galaxies spring to mind).
-EvilMagnus
1. Permanent Death
I disagree that it is a given that this is a naturally good thing. I do agree that there are some players who prefer to play this way, and while I'm not one of them, I can understand how that could be a thrilling experience. I, on the other hand, am looking to enjoy myself and experience the content. He claims that by adding permanent death content would be more replayable because we'd see it through the eyes of man characters instead of uber-character. Like I said, I think there's a case to be made for a permanent death option, but please, this is not it. It's precisely because I don't want to repeat the same damn content over and over that I don't want permanent death to be a fact of life. He overlooks the simplest answer of all: have both options available, a la Diablo II's Hardcore Mode. Mark these players out as special somehow too, so we can marvel at their Hardcore-ness if need be. I don't mind. But don't prevent me from seeing the cooler upper-level spells and areas because you think non-permanent death removes your eliteness.
2. Instances
I'm not sure what he was smoking on this one. Instances are fine. I've been playing WoW for three months and I've rarely ever gone into an instance with the same people even twice. I meet random people and head in. Instances prevent a far, far worse concern that he completely ignores, namely the camping of quest-integral mobs and items. Because yeah, it's FUN to hang around at the end of a dungeon for 8 hours for that rare boss spawn. Just ask old-time EQ players.
Even his arguments against make little sense: that it will fence players off from each other. Moronic. Again, in WoW, there is maybe one, sometimes two such instances in a zone. Instances probably make up, what, 4% of the game's area? You spend maybe 5% of your total playing time in one? And this fences you off? Or, we could let everyone camp mobs, and a fun dungeon experience could be ruined by group of asshats spamming "You are teh sux0r" and corpse camping you. Yeah, that's fun. His four points about newbies may be true. I can see some truth in his argument. But he still can't use that to prove which features are inherently good or bad. That's ridiculous. Of course, since I'm disagreeing with him, I'm almost certainly a 'newb'. Well, he can think what he wants, just like I will think what I want.
Wood Shavings!
- Godai
Take Everquest for instance. This game has been running so long that the people in "one age" aren't the same people in "the next age".
In the beginning the imfamous idea foisted by the creators was called "The Vision". It was basically a creedo of how they thought the game should behave in form and function. It wasn't perfect (for instance non-magic classes were left devoid of any extra skills) but it was a solid framework to start from.
But as time moved on, these people who created "The Vision" left to do other things and this was slowly dismantled. Each expansion that has come afterwards seems to have gotten more haphazard with adding features. Things are added to the game by designers who have little knowledge of the hsitory of the game (or possibly don't care) which turns the game into a hodpodge of skills and monsters that don't grow with time.
Although showing its age and probably on its last legs, Everquest at this point is shaken ever expansion due to this effect. Designers only seem to know or care about their current creation instead of creating a solid and sound system that will stand the test of time.
It isn't so much that MMOGs are designed by Newbs. They are designed by people who probably aren't going to be working on the same project a year from now.
Okay, so for us MUD-less ones, how do we get started? What are some popular MUDs? Or is that even the right question?
I think part of the problem with MUDs is that there's a larger learning curve than for getting into Everquest or FFXI. So, would some MUD veterans like to give some suggestions on how to reach MUD enlightenment?
Who said Freedom was Fair?
now dont get me wrong, i am neither here nor there on this issue. considering im a relative /. newb (i havent been here nearly as long as the people who have been here before me.. ahhm...)
anyways, "good ol' days" aside, how can we get past the fact that a "non-reg alternative" was clearly posted next to the reg required link?
is there another problem at hand here or am i just to darn stupid to see the obvious peril and turmoil this *gasp* RR-linkaged is causing in the more-hardcore-/.er-then-thou crowd?
i can see if every link on the homepage was RR, is this the way it seems..?
--- Why rant when you can rave?
Actually, you're supporting his point. The reason you get so attached to a character is that you are allowed to get attached. If the game had included permanent death, you would never have a character for 8 months unless you were really really good. Now, because you've grown accustomed to having non-permanent death, you demand it in all of your games. When he talks about players that reject short-term-bad, long-term-good features, he's talking about you, and the fact that you disagree with him actually supports his argument.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
Likewise with instancing, if instead of letting a party kill a monster in their own space on the server, simply design the content so that the resources don't need to be campped. Come up with some completely different solution.
The arguments I've seen against perma-death and for instancing all seem to assume that a game that chooses to implement these features differently from the mainstream would still make the same fundamental design mistakes that require you to spend 2 years of mind-numbing tedium to build up a character. If you can have fun with the character right off the bat, and camping resources were effectively impossible, then perma-death becomes a lot more acceptable and instancing becomes unnecessary.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Permanent death is a good thing. Reaching the upper levels should be rare and it should require skill. If your character is mortal you will be forced to weigh decisions carefully, play smarter and cooperate with other players to use their strengths and cover each others weaknesses.
my password is private, but unchanged.
Great, so he argues that the designers should force me to experience the things that I hate the very most about MMORPGs. I love being able to play with just my friends, because in my experience 90% of other people on a given online anything suck. Occasionally I will attempt to group with other people, and occasionally I will find a good one, but good god, don't force me to play with B0N3D3WD and PL4T3D00D.
I like teleportation because I really don't want to waste my real time spending a half hour running across a massive continent to get somewhere (maybe the first time, okay) just because you really want me to have to see the trees that you placed out there and you want to slow down my consumption of content with another useless treadmill.
The funny thing is that I mostly agree with his 1-4 premises, but then he just uses those to justify lazy designer/implementer decisions. If I read him correctly, City of Heroes sucks horribly (and just happens to be fun as hell) and Star Wars Galaxies really is a much better game (that just happens to be a tedious grind).
Let's not forget what I want here. I want long term gratification through increased skills and bling bling, but more importantly small chunks of immediate gratification. I don't have time to devote eight hours a day to an MMORPG. If you insist on making my hour of play unfun because of your silly ideas of how I should be playing, I will indeed cancel my subscription.
If there's 5000 players, there's 5000 potential content designers.
I don't think the solution is to invent a massive AI, but to figure out a way to leverage the creativity of the player base.
For example, let's imagine a dungeon hack type game wherein the ultimate goal is to own your own dungeon. Players roll up characters and send them off into other player's dungeons to get slaughtered or come away with treasure (which they can use as a nest egg for their own dungeon, or to improve their characters.)
As a dungeon master, your goal would be to aquire hero corpses from as many different players as possible. You'd have to seed your dungeon with bait, come up with fair challenges, deck the halls with interesting decor, and advertise the existance of your deathtrap (perhaps via treasure maps).
Fair dungeons (with a good risk vs. reward) that change often would naturally generate the most dead heros. Too easy, and you lose your treasure stake without killing any adventurers. Too hard, and players just won't visit.
It doesn't work in a massively multiplayer setting, because:
In a P&P game, you're only playing for a few hours every week, and even those few hours are 10x slower than an MMORPG. If you speed it up to MMO speeds and consider that people play every day or every other day, you'd be dying at an incredible rate.
This doesn't even take into account the fact that in P&P games, you have a human controlling the other side, who can back off if they're leniant and don't want to wipe out an entire party - and can create an encounter to directly match your party strength from the start.
In a P&P game, the DM has the luxury of providing new content every time the group plays, whereas a MMORPG doesn't.
"It lets them play from other angles" is just plain designer railroading, forcing them to see the same content over and over again because, hell, you spent a lot of work on it! Everyone should see every nook and cranny of your work.
How about no? If I want to see it from other angles, I'll create multiple characters.
The 'default fiction' for real life is dying if you don't eat and drink in a few days. The 'default fiction' for the middle ages is that you die if you get any kind of major wound. These things aren't fun, which is the reason we play games.
While I agree that Player Death in MMORPG's at the moment leaves something to be desired, saying "These noobs have no idea, back in the day..." isn't a valid solution either.