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.
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.
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
I think you have to expand your paradigm a bit. For example.. do you truly object to 'Permanent Death'.. or are you really objecting to 'Replaying the same content again'?
I believe he's really objecting to 'Replaying the same content again', which makes him fall under Bartle's #3:
Point #3: Players judge all virtual worlds as a reflection of the one they first got into.
In many games, PM would lead to replaying content, but that doesn't make PM an inherently bad thing. Actually, most of the posts so far that object to Bartle seem to fall under #3. They object to PD, no teleportation, and no instances because they imagine what it would do to the games they know, not what it would mean for a New And Better Game (tm). And that would make that New And Better Game fail, which is Bartle's point.
This is not a sig.
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.