Slashdot Mirror


The Laws of Online World Design

Next Gen has an article up republishing Raph Koster's seminal laws of Online World Design. The piece is one of the basic texts used to think about the way to put a MMOG together. From the article: "Design Rules - The secrets to a really long-lived, goal-oriented, online game of wide appeal : have multiple paths of advancement (individual features are nice, but making them ladders is better), make it easy to switch between paths of advancement (ideally, without having to start over), make sure the milestones in the path of advancement are clear and visible and significant (having 600 meaningless milestones doesn't help), ideally, make your game not have a sense of running out of significant milestones (try to make your ladder not feel finite) "

64 comments

  1. Rule #2 by Quarters · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Design Rules - The secrets to a really long-lived, goal-oriented, online game of wide appeal : have multiple paths of advancement (individual features are nice, but making them ladders is better), make it easy to switch between paths of advancement (ideally, without having to start over), make sure the milestones in the path of advancement are clear and visible and significant (having 600 meaningless milestones doesn't help)...

    Rule #2: Ignore all of those useful insights when designing the Jedi class in SWG.

    1. Re:Rule #2 by Kris_J · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or when designing World of Warcraft. I mean, seriously, what does slaughtering hundreds critters have to do with my ability to tailor clothes, mine minerals or mix potions?

    2. Re:Rule #2 by interiot · · Score: 1
      Or when designing World of Warcraft. I mean, seriously, what does slaughtering hundreds critters have to do with my ability to tailor clothes, mine minerals or mix potions?
      Nothing.

      What does earning 1000's of gold standing at the AH all day have to do with running instances at level 60? Not much. What does creating a new character that's a different class have to do with gaining reputation in the battlegrounds? They're all just different ways to play the same game with the same group of friends and the same mechanics that you're used to, without getting intensely bored.

      (and as the page so elequently points out, there are many reasons why people will leave... but there WILL be some people who hang on for a while, for various reasons, and giving those people more reasons to hang on is the sign of a well-designed MMORPG)

    3. Re:Rule #2 by interiot · · Score: 1
      As the page points out, MMORPG's are much more expansive than single-player games. There isn't nearly as linear of a path chosen for you. There are many goals that can be pursued, and you pick the ones that are enjoyable for you. For some, power-leveling to 60 as fast as possible is fun. For others, enjoying every instance along the way is fun. For others, practicing tradeskills is fun.

      If you want a more linear game, then maybe single-player games would be more appropriate for you.

    4. Re:Rule #2 by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      You miss the point. Professions in WoW typically max out at level 300, but you can't get above 150 unless your character level is at least 20, and you can't get above level 225 unless your character level is at least 35. Making clothes, or gold bars, or potions does not increase your character's level, just your character's skill at their profession. Only killing things and doing quests (usually the quests require killing things) increase your character's level. Thus, to be the ultimate tailor, you must kill lots of things.

    5. Re:Rule #2 by llevity · · Score: 1

      I know it doesn't make logical sense on the surface, but I don't this this limitation is arbitrary. If there were no limits based on level, you could make a handful of level 1 characters whose sole existences were just to produce. You send them the leather, cloth, herbs, metal you harvest with your main characters, and they churn out armor, potions, tailored robes. Without forcing you to actually invest time with them in also leveling up, this would soon lead to even more of a glut of player crafted items. Most crafters have already realized that there are very few crafted items that sell well. By forcing you to invest time in a character to level them up, while chosing a finite number of professions, it limits the supply of crafted items available to the market. Now more people are buying crafted items, instead of just grinding up their leatherworking on their level 1 alt.

    6. Re:Rule #2 by nathanmace · · Score: 1

      Killing critters doesn't have anything to do with mining, tailoring or making potions. That is why killing stuff does not increase your profession skills. :-)

      --
      I'm very responsible, when ever something goes wrong they always say I'm responsible.
    7. Re:Rule #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know how some people just like to craft in MMORPGS? That restriction is to ensure that they have to actually grind as well.

      I dunno, it doesn't really matter, since other than Alchemy, the trade skills in WoW really suck. It's generally harder to create trade skill items than to get equivilent world drops. The best are the trade skill recipes gotten as rare drops off mobs that drop better gear at the same rate. Add in the rare components needed for the item - what's the point?!

    8. Re:Rule #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only two men in the world that can ruin Star Wars. Raph Koster, and George Lucas. From this we can infer that fat bearded guys are the biggest threat to that galaxy far, far, away; not the Sith.

    9. Re:Rule #2 by PakProtector · · Score: 1
      I know it doesn't make logical sense on the surface, but I don't this this limitation is arbitrary. If there were no limits based on level, you could make a handful of level 1 characters whose sole existences were just to produce.

      So, your problem with this is that it too closely simulates the real world?

      --

      Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
      man: no entry for woman in the manual.
      "Qua!?"

    10. Re:Rule #2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. I can't believe we're listening to a guy from SOE on how to make a good game. Let's cut the bullshit. Here's how that list really goes at SOE:

      SOE Rule #1: Marketing concerns > Anything else

      SOE Rule #2: Display content or claims on the box that's not in the actual game.

      SOE Rule #3: When players complain about #2, distract them with promises of outlandish improvements. If that doesn't work, discuss buffing player classes. Rely on fanboys and rude forum admins to berate dissenters.

      SOE Rule #4: About 6 months after release, release an expansion pack containing content that you promised on the original box (a la Planetside: Core Combat).

      SOE Rule #5: If the expansion is optional, make sure that the expansion has content so that those without the expansion will be completely owned by those who do.

      ...

      Anyone else care to add?

  2. Psst by melikamp · · Score: 1

    A hot button for me. Since I just got slapped on the wrist by ESA for selling my WoW account on eBay, the one feature that I really want is being able to sell my account and its contents. I used to think that SOE is gay, but once I realized that I can retire for $400 I, like, totally re-evaluated my entire life.

    1. Re:Psst by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ESA? Who are they? What did they do? Fill us in on the details. :) I actually bought a wow account on ebay before because I was bored with my class and wanted to try another at 60 without leveling again.

  3. Part of what's wrong with gaming today by DrunkenTerror · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTA (emphasis theirs):

    Is it a game?
    It's a SERVICE. Not a game. It's a WORLD. Not a game. It's a COMMUNITY. Not a game. Anyone who says, "it's just a game" is missing the point.


    I think this is exactly the WRONG point of view to be promoting among devs. Heh, I guess I miss the author's point, but to me he describes exactly the mindset that has lead to all these so-called games that are really just FIFO inventory models.

    MMORPG's exhibit no required skill, they just present a time-sink that anyone with enough life-energy to click a mouse can participate in. Some make it to lvl 60 (or 100, or whatever the max is) quickly, others more slowly, and some never, but there is never any real test of gaming ability other than, "I'm more persistent at putting up with this repetative crap than you are, that's why I'm higher level."

    Pen and paper D&D at least had an element of outsmarting the other players and/or GM. To succeed you had to think, act, strategize, out-intellegence, and talk your way to a victory. This type of experience is sorely lacking from modern MMORPGS, in my experience. It's more an excercise in collecting the sparkly eq that the giant glowing snail drops and selling it to noobs. MMORPGs as we know them are not games, in the traditional sense of video games, or role-playing games. I would suggest that they are barely even games.

    1. Re:Part of what's wrong with gaming today by RaphKoster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Online worlds encompass game worlds like EQ and WoW, social worlds like There.com and Habbo Hotel, user-created worlds like Second Life and Furcadia, educational worlds like MOOse Crossing and military training sims, research-oriented worlds like MediaMOO, and much more. Thinking that they are all games is exactly the point of this law.

      Online worlds are a PLATFORM first and foremost. Putting games in that platform is certainly one of the top things you can do, and if you do so, you had better make sure those games are fun, certainly. But it's also not that hard to make an online world that has a fun game in it and yet ignores the other factors of worldness, community, and service, and have a disaster on your hands--there's plenty of examples of that.

    2. Re:Part of what's wrong with gaming today by TLLOTS · · Score: 1

      As far as skill in MMORPG's goes, you should really give Guild Wars a look. The level cap is 20, and statistics are only a small portion of what determines if you win a battle or not.

    3. Re:Part of what's wrong with gaming today by bellmounte · · Score: 1

      PVP

      I assume you are reffering to WoW since you made a comment about lvl 60. Once you hit lvl 60 there is so much more you can do. MC and BWL runs to get epic gear. Then try to get rank 14 (which it is rummored only 5% of a server will ever get). Oh and did I mention you have to keep pvping to maintain your rank?

    4. Re:Part of what's wrong with gaming today by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      You couldn't be more correct. It is a time sink, and a psychologically addictive one at that.

      I present this essay that does a great job explaining how every single MMORPG out there today (they use EQ as an example, but it applies to all) is one big virtual Skinner Box. Once that idea sinks in a bit, it does kinda kill the fun of all MMORPGs for you because you see exactly what buttons they're pushing, and exactly how it is drawing you in and how ultimately there IS NO FRIGGIN POINT!

      That is why I find myself now playing FPS almost exclusively. It relies on skill rather than walking up to critter A, hitting attack, and waiting.

      Wake me when they actually make an MMORPG that you actually have to PLAY, and please don't say WoW, its just as guilty as the rest, its just pretty and more polished.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    5. Re:Part of what's wrong with gaming today by devilsadvoc8 · · Score: 1

      To expand on the parent's thoughts which I wholeheartedly agree with.

      These MMORPGs are simply a grind based on an algorithm. Nothing more. Its because (and this is quite obvious) gaming hasn't progressed to the open universe that P&P RPG's can attain. Each successive "upgrade" in MMORPG's whether it is WoW or the next big jump are simply the result of two things: flashier graphics and a different advancement algorithm.

      When a truely interactive physical world in which every action has a reaction and players have more options than (1) run away, (2) attack with melee weapon (3) attack with ranged weapon or (4) attack with spell. I will wholeheartedly jump in. Until then, its really same game different grind.

      --
      B O R I N G
  4. A Game is Finite by Taulin · · Score: 1

    The word 'Game' pretty much means it is Finite. The only way a game is not finite is if it is random. Even then, you will see paterns because the budget is too small and the workers are lacking sleep.

  5. Bylaws vs. Rules of the Road by Midnight+Warrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I have to admit, the article is quite enlightening. I am most interested in the object and economic systems. Fortunately, Mr. Koster was a little shy on the macro-scale things, instead focusing on software design issues like: usability, maintainability, and scalability.

    My own thoughts on the matter are entitled Virtual World Bylaws and are my own.

    Persistence means it never goes away was a very pertinent topic and one that I address in much more detail. Problems here include: trusting the system owners to do good backups, proving proper transfer of world objects between owners, and avoiding client-side corruption. The Never trust the client problem has a potential solution in my paper. It's not completely solved, but corruption of in-world objects is at least trivialized.

    He touches on in-game community, but has neglected the larger interoperability problem between games and vendors. Too many clients and connection methods. Game persistence lasts only as long as the operating system or game console are in use, which is absurd.

    The idea that really tickled me was the economy theorem that was so obvious I missed it. "Players will hate having this drain, but if you do not enforce ongoing expenditures, you will have Monty Haul syndrome, infinite accumulation of wealth, overall rise in the "standard of living" and capabilities of the average player." This methedology really need connected with the Attention is the currency of the future and you will see the solution to the small-time MMORPG player and the 30+hours a week gamer. Us small-timers walk in and get creamed because these full-timers are super heroes.

    Perchance, we ought to tie increased skill with increased responsibility, just like in real life. Level 30+ character, you must now lead larger missions. Short term players can now join the group, like showing up at the gym and playing a game of basketball with strangers. A couple of guys are there all the time and are either friendly or they aren't. Not friendly means no squads to go on more complex missions.

    1. Re:Bylaws vs. Rules of the Road by CDarklock · · Score: 1

      > I am most interested in the object and
      > economic systems.

      From your rules, you seem most interested in player *control* of the object and economic systems under a system that prevents unfairness. I don't think anyone can really argue that this is a *bad* thing.

      But what exactly does this add to the *game*? It seems like a political concept more than a game concept. It smacks of "workers' control of the means of production" - not that I find it socialist at all, but it's the same basic class of idea. I'm interested in knowing how an open player-directed economy will be more likely to enhance the game than damage it.

      A PKI solution to the object duping problem looks workable, although I haven't gone into the details too much yet.

      --
      Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
  6. Somethings are right for a change! by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Many of those things said are exactly correct, but they're also incredibly basic pieces of information.

    For example: His notion that macros will happen, so the solution is to not make any boring parts... I came up with this when I was the first person to create the drain health macro in Asheron's Call. Before me, there were no effective macros in Asheron's Call. But I made the drain health macro mainly to prove the point that the game should be not so easy that its tedious, and even had discussions with the devs. They chose to allow macroing for a year and a half, but never fixed parts of their game. I do have a soft spot for Turbine though, Asheron's Call was quality, Asheron's Call 2 was just an abuse fest, now I am waiting for DDO...

    Which brings me to my 2nd point. DDO will be an action oriented MMOG. Most MMOGS of the future will be action. Why? Because of the lessons learned from the macroing. A simple game is not fun. If you make it complex and highly dependent on whats going on VS clicking the same button over and over... Then you get a fun game. The future looks very bright for MMOGS. It will probably take 15-30 years before seriously awesome MMOGs come out where you'll want to play for a lifetime. But the nice thing is, until the ultimate MMOGS come out, we'll have some MMOGS that have some good points that will tide us over.

    1. Re:Somethings are right for a change! by RaphKoster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a lot of the info on there is very basic. That would be because the article dates from 1998, and is mostly gathered from stuff predating that, such as games on the online services, MUDs, and Habitat. Players and developers both have gotten a bit more sophisticated since then--once upon a time some of this stuff was really eye-opening. ;)

  7. Based upon the article summary alone by aztektum · · Score: 1

    He failed at the majority of them with SW:G

    Ok so it has multiple paths of advancement, but you have to essentially start over if you change the path you start out on.

    There are clearly defined milestones which come after you've wandered around killing enough random wildlife, you get a message saying you've earned enough XP for another skill box.

    And those milestones disappear once you've reached a master profession, thereby necessitating you to either run around and kill more wildlife or essentially start over on a new profession.

    Raph could use a time machine to send himself, circa 2001, a copy of his "seminal laws."

    --
    :: aztek ::
    No sig for you!!
    1. Re:Based upon the article summary alone by CDarklock · · Score: 1

      > He failed at the majority of them with SW:G

      True, but he knows that. (Most of these rules predate SW:G. I know mine do, and they're arranged roughly chronologically.)

      These laws are an ideal in progress. Nobody implements them perfectly. Some of them are contradictory. Others present problems with multiple solutions, all of them bad.

      One of Raph's biggest problems has always been that he needs approval from the management and cooperation from the design and development teams to make them happen. He's gotten more of that at SW:G than he did at UO, but he still doesn't have the 100% faith and trust he needs to make his idealised vision that follows as many rules as is practical.

      Of course, I'm biased, as you'd know if you read far enough down the list to find Darklock's first and second laws. ;)

      --
      Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
  8. Guild Wars rant by DumbWhiteGuy777 · · Score: 1

    Maybe I'm just a fanboy, but Guild Wars has an attribute system that you can completely switch at just about any moment, many milestones by reaching different towns and armors, and also a Guild PVP ladder. It's definitely worth checking out, even if you're a skeptic of MMO's.

    Oh yeah, it's FREE too.

    1. Re:Guild Wars rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Cost me fifty damn dollars, mofo, which is how much EB is selling it for. So you'd better look up the word "free" before you go spouting it and all that crap. The only damn good game that is free is Nethack and it kind of sucks.

    2. Re:Guild Wars rant by brandonY · · Score: 1

      The only damn good game that is free is Nethack and it kind of sucks.
      A blessed scroll of genocide will help you with those brain-sucking mindflayers, you know.

    3. Re:Guild Wars rant by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      I just had a pang of nostalgia for that great game. It takes a while to understand its beauty, but once you do...

  9. this just in! by Flunitrazepam · · Score: 1

    All MMO worlds are clones of one another with the same boring ass level grind.

    We don't need rules, we need someone with the balls to try something completely different. The only people playing today's MMOs are merely living in a dellusionary world where the misery invested waiting for King Orcfuck's Magic Dildo to drop will some day magically pay off and the game will become fun.

    --
    1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.
    1. Re:this just in! by joper90 · · Score: 1

      so.. whats your idea?

    2. Re:this just in! by Drawkcab · · Score: 1

      Try the free trial for A Tale in the Desert (atitd.net). Its not for everyone, but one thing its got going for it is that its genuinely different. There are no levels, violence, armor, or NPCs, but there are still plenty of goals, involving occupations, and subtler forms of PvP.

  10. MY laws for a successful MMORPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Take a long hard look at Star Wars Galaxies, then do the opposite of everything they did.

    End.

  11. From the source by Anm · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is a reprint of something that has been around forever. Here is the original posting at Raph's website.

    Anm

  12. Identity by wakejagr · · Score: 1

    You will NEVER have a solid unique identity for your problematic players. They essentially have complete anonymity because of the Internet. Even addresses, credit cards, and so on can be faked--and will be.

    While this is obviously a problem, doesn't a subscription system mostly limit this? If I'm a jerk, I get banned and have to pony up another fee, right? I guess I go away pretty quick (or make the company a lot of money).

    I don't play mainstream MMOG's (mangband is more my style), so I'm wondering what others think about this. The only people I 'band with are friends or friends of friends, so "problematic players" haven't been an issue.

    --
    Don't save Windows XP! http://www.petitiononline.com/jjw1xp/petition.html
  13. In theory it sounds good by Moraelin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Online worlds are a PLATFORM first and foremost. Putting games in that platform is certainly one of the top things you can do, and if you do so, you had better make sure those games are fun, certainly. But it's also not that hard to make an online world that has a fun game in it and yet ignores the other factors of worldness, community, and service, and have a disaster on your hands--there's plenty of examples of that."

    But in practice there are plenty of examples to the opposite too.

    E.g., TSO comes to mind. It had a world, it was designed to be more of a community than any MMO ever made (there wasn't much else than social interaction in it anyway), and it was based on _the_ biggest franchise name in PC gaming history. (The Sims outsold all Warcraft games combined.) And it flopped. It peaked at about 35 times less players than WoW has, and again, WoW started from a less big franchise name.

    The problem: well, it was everything _except_ a game. The "game" part was about as exciting and fun as watching paint dry.

    E.g., to be nasty: UO. It _invented_ a genre (not to mention was based on the biggest RPG franchise name) and quickly ended up in third place. It peaked at about 1/14 as many players as WoW currently has, or 1/2 of what Everquest had without a franchise name or anything.

    And again, we're talking about inventing a genre. Look at what Wolfenstein 3D did for Id, to understand by contrast the _massive_ failure of UO.

    The problems were many, including, yes, an utter failure to even try being fun or balanced as a game. Gameplay was pretty much non-existent, whole skills were utterly useless (e.g., was there _any_ use for tinkering, except traps to kill newbies?) or conversely had 2/3 of the possible actions in the game under one single skill (ever seen even miners or sheepherds without magic skill in UO?), and so on.

    Oh yes, it concentrated on being a world and a platform instead. At all cost. Even if it meant alienating the players. _Years_ were spent into trying to justify why it's good and realistic for newbies to be pk-ed on sight, for example, while players were leaving en-masse to AC and EQ because of it. Or in various failed band-aid experiments which were _already_ proven not to work on MUDs. Had the world and platform ahead of what the players wanted for so long, that it just lost most of those players.

    "Online worlds encompass game worlds like EQ and WoW, social worlds like There.com and Habbo Hotel, user-created worlds like Second Life and Furcadia, educational worlds like MOOse Crossing and military training sims, research-oriented worlds like MediaMOO, and much more. Thinking that they are all games is exactly the point of this law."

    Heh. Compared to the population of even the worst MMO flop, a MUD is a spit in the bucket. Even if some of those are examples of "but look, you can make an online world even without much of a game", then the rightful second half of that phrase is "and be an utter and total flop, compared to worlds which _do_ have a game."

    We can learn a lot of valuable lessons about human interactions and such from MUDs, yes. But if we're talking about designing a world that's a _commercial_ _success_ on any reasonable scale, let's stick to the likes of EQ and WoW, please.

    Plus, it's a skewed comparison anyway to compare a world which has a 15$ per month price tag, to a MUD that works for free through Telnet. Something that requires people to reach into their wallet and _stull_ has 3000 times more players, well, I'd say it did something a _lot_ better than those research MOOs.

    Plus, if we are including free online worlds like MUDs and MOOs, and consider the genre as broad as to include pretty much anything online including those... then we also get plenty of games which are counter-examples to the "But it's also not that hard to make an online world that has a fun game in it and yet ignores the other factors of worldness, community, and service, and have a disaster on your hands" point. Th

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:In theory it sounds good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      E.g., to be nasty: UO. It _invented_ a genre (not to mention was based on the biggest RPG franchise name) and quickly ended up in third place. It peaked at about 1/14 as many players as WoW currently has, or 1/2 of what Everquest had without a franchise name or anything.

      And again, we're talking about inventing a genre. Look at what Wolfenstein 3D did for Id, to understand by contrast the _massive_ failure of UO.

      The problems were many, including, yes, an utter failure to even try being fun or balanced as a game. Gameplay was pretty much non-existent, whole skills were utterly useless (e.g., was there _any_ use for tinkering, except traps to kill newbies?) or conversely had 2/3 of the possible actions in the game under one single skill (ever seen even miners or sheepherds without magic skill in UO?), and so on.

      Oh yes, it concentrated on being a world and a platform instead. At all cost. Even if it meant alienating the players. _Years_ were spent into trying to justify why it's good and realistic for newbies to be pk-ed on sight, for example, while players were leaving en-masse to AC and EQ because of it. Or in various failed band-aid experiments which were _already_ proven not to work on MUDs. Had the world and platform ahead of what the players wanted for so long, that it just lost most of those players.

      This is such bullshit I don't even know where to start.

      Quickly ended up in third place? UO came out in Sept. 1997. It was in first place until EQ overtook it in mid 1999. From there it remained a strong 2nd until DAoC passed it in mid 2002. 5 years is quickly? Or are you ridiculously including Lineage in this comparison? I don't feel like getting into the whole argument about how wrong that would be, but I'll just say that even including Lineage, UO did not fall to 3rd place until nearly 2 years after it was released.

      So what if it had 1/14 the players of WoW? What does that prove? When UO was in its prime, the total MMOG market was only a few hundred thousand people. Almost no one outside of the hardcode MUD players and Ultima fans even knew it existed and almost no one knew what a MMOG was. Today there are millions of MMOG players. Almost everyone has heard of them. EQ has been featured on national news programs. Of course the top MMOG today will have vastly more subscribers than the top MMOG 8 years ago. If it didn't, the MMOG industry would be in serious trouble. Besides all that, WoW had the advantage of seeing 8 years of MMOG history and learning what it takes to make a good game. UO was the pioneer and had no such advantage.

      And what does it prove to say that EQ surpassed it in success? UO was an aging game when EQ came out. Many people, myself included, loved UO but were ready to try something new after nearly 2 years of playing one game. EQ came along at the perfect time. It's only competition was a game that was a couple years older, whose player base was excited about trying something new and seeing what the next generation of MMOGs would bring. Does that mean UO sucked? Hell no, it had just passed its prime. The "newness" factor was wearing off, the game engine was beginning to show its age, and however good a game is, the vast majority of people are not going to play one game for more than 2 years when there are decent alternatives. And don't underestimate the effect of the 3D world when trying to build appeal among the masses who don't have the same passion for roleplaying and internet gaming as the early adopters. The point is, it's a bunch of crap to try and rate the quality of 2 games based on subsription numbers when the games are vastly different and were released years apart in vastly different market conditions.

      What planet are you living on to call UO a massive failure? The massive success of UO is the reason EQ and it's successors were created. It spawned an entirely new genre that is still growing to this day. It made (and continues to make) millions for EA/Origin.

    2. Re:In theory it sounds good by RaphKoster · · Score: 1

      Again, I think you are missing the point. I am not arguing against games, far from it. But even today, the largest, most successful virtual world is not WoW. It's Habbo Hotel. Let's not be blinkered by our personal preference for games; games kick ass, I wrote a whole book about how and why. But online worlds are not just games.

    3. Re:In theory it sounds good by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      First of all, before I get started, no, I don't have an axe to grind against UO. I'm just questioning the whole idea that a MMO is supposed to be a anything _but_ a game. That it has to be a world, a platform, a community, a time-sink, everything _but_ a game. Oh, really? Personally I'd highly question that.

      UO just happens to be a prime example of that. It was a world, a platform, a great community, and... absolutely piss-poor as a _game_. And cared more about their world and platform than about what the players wanted.

      I'm sure other games make equally, if not better examples of that. UO just happens to be an example that's very well known (and hopefully very well known to Mr Koster.)

      But OK, if you want to talk UO, let's talk UO. I did bring it up, so I'm not gonna back away from discussing the point, obviously.

      1. So you're telling me that UO stayed in first place _only_ as long as it had _no_ competition? Heh. I'm sure you can see what's wrong with that. It's not hard to be in the first place when you're not competing against anyone, is it? It's like saying "I was the fastest runner on Earth until they made me compete against other people."

      2. Ok, the point about the engine getting old is well taken. But what about all the engine upgrades UO had, including an update to 3D? Let me remind you that even then, stuff that looked like complete ass (e.g., AC looked horrible) _still_ stole UO's players.

      So, no, I feel it's entirely fair to compare them when UO had all the chances in the world to change and improve, to stay in the competition. We're not talking comparing UO of 1997 to WoW of 2005. We're talking a UO that had literally hundreds of patches, and more expansion packs than The Sims to stay competitive and comparable to the newer games.

      3. Only because of graphics? Heh. Dude, graphics were the _least_ of complaints about UO. UO was, for a long while, known as "the place you go if you want to be harrassed by idiot griefers and PK'ers." EQ and AC pretty much made it their _main_ message and _main_ reason to switch, that they're the place where you won't have to deal with idiot PKers like in UO. (Along with other messages like actually having quests and world events. I.e., being a _game_.)

      4. Yes, the point is taken that some 250,000 people still like UO. (Or that was the number some time ago, when I last saw some numbers.) But see, that's actually the whole point: 14 times more people like WoW a lot more.

      Between (A) a world which is little more than a world and a damn good community, and (B) a world which also has a damn good game, even if it lacks a lot of the social stuff like player housing... it seems to me that a _lot_ more people have chosen (B). Even if we leave UO out, TSO is an even better example: 35 times more people chose a _game_ like WoW over a pure community/social _platform_ like TSO.

      That's in the end the whole point: only being a world and a world just doesn't cut it. A good community helps keep the players there, yes (and UO does make a good example of that), but actually being an enjoyable game is what gets them there and playing in the first place. Before you even get to have online friends and guild-mates that make you go back there, comes a month or so when you don't even know many people and you just run around killing bears and making potions. If that month isn't much fun as a _game_, not many people will even make it into the other half.

      5. Yes, of course it's my personal opinion.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    4. Re:In theory it sounds good by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Well, ok, upon re-reading it all, I guess I can see your point.

      Still, just to nitpick of the choice of an example:

      Hmm... A quick trip to http://www.habbohotel.com/habbo/en/ says "Habbos in the hotel: 5315". Doesn't look to me like that great an active population. I'm sure not only WoW, but even more minor players like CoH or AO can boast more players logged in at any given time. (At a wild guess, WoW only needs some 50 people or so on each server to beat that number.)

      I'm assuming that's not total active population, but people currently logged in.

      For an (admittedly not apples-to-apples) comparison to more traditional games, I went to Game Spy and looked at the box on the right side of the page. "192,921 gamers are online right now." at roughly the same moment. Half life alone clocks in at 54,228 players online ATM on the servers scanned by GameSpy. (I.e., excluding those who play it on a lan, or single-player, or whatever.)

      I don't know, 5315 sounds like roughly 10 times less people in the successful non-game, compared to a 8 years old _game_. Maybe I chose the wrong moment to check, but it doesn't like sound _that_ impressive a success.

      Some quick (and admittedly bogus) maths says that if the average player spent only 2 hours a day there (and ignoring variations like that now it's friday afternoon and it might have more players than at, say, 4 AM, but probably less than at 8 PM)... well, that would put the active population at some some 60,000 Habbos total.

      I'm talking this time _active_ players, not just people who created an account last year and in the meantime forgot about it. By comparison, TSO was considered a flop when it peaked at 100,000 active accounts.

      Also for something that's basically IRC with cutesy graphics, it kinda looks thin compared to the real IRC without graphics.

      So not as a flame, but as genuine curiosity: by which criterion do you count it as the most successful virtual world, and more successful than WoW? In which metric did it beat WoW?

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    5. Re:In theory it sounds good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Read what I said again. I never said it was a great accomplishment to stay in first when there was no competition. I was merely refuting your claim that it "quickly" fell to third place. That is clearly incorrect and I was just providing the unbiased facts.

      2. The engine upgades to UO were a joke and I'm not going to defend them or most of the changes that were made to the game in the last 5 years. I'm talking about how good UO was in it's prime, not the quality of the bastardized POS that it's turned into. But you have to admit it's pretty silly to expect an 8-year-old game to compete favorably with a brand new one. I don't care how many patches it's had, it's just not realistic. It's called a patch for a reason. If you got a hole in your jeans and patched it up, then repeated that a couple hundred times over a decade, would you expect your jeans to compare favorably to a new pair?

      3. Only because of graphics? Where did I say that? I wrote several paragraphs and I think I only mentioned the graphics in 1 sentence. I was merely saying that there were a whole host of factors working in favor of EQ, one of which was graphics. If you look closely, you'll see that I never said UO was the best game ever and I never said it was better than EQ. All I'm saying is that it is wrong to say EQ was a better game than UO just because it had more subscribers. There are dozens of reasons for that other than the quality of the core gameplay.

      4. Again, that's meaningless. You can probably count on one hand the number of 8-year-old games that continue rival the popularity of the best new games on the market today. That doesn't mean they weren't great back in the day and that doesn't mean you can zero in on one arbitrary aspect of the older games and claim that that is the primary reason they're not popular anymore.

      Again, I'm not going to argue about the gameplay of UO since you obviously hated it and are extremely biased against it. But when you start making false claims to back up your position and make apples to oranges comparisons of games that were released years apart, I have to call BS. See, I'm not even necessarily disagreeing with your main point about creating a "game" vs. a "world", I'm disagreeing with your evidence.

      Your logic is basically:
      (a) UO was a "world".
      (b) EQ and WoW are "games".
      (c) EQ and WoW have better subscription numbers.
      (d) Therefore "game" > "world".

      There are lots of reasons why EQ and WoW have more subscribers than UO. To isolate one difference ("world" vs. "game"), and suggest that it is the only, or even primary, reason for the difference is ridiculous. The problem is that your core position is an opinion and you're trying to "prove" that opinion to be fact using statistics which are very flawed. Then you go on to rant about things like PKs and the usefulness of tinkering, which serve no purpose other than to further bash UO; they're completely irrelevant to the discussion. If you want to make the case that an MMO has to be a game, be my guest, I agree with you. You don't need to turn the discussion into a rant against UO to make that case though.

    6. Re:In theory it sounds good by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      "If you want to make the case that an MMO has to be a game, be my guest, I agree with you."

      Well, that's all the case I was trying to make, yes.

      "You don't need to turn the discussion into a rant against UO to make that case though."

      I was just trying to give some examples from the categories (A) it has more world/community than game, vs (B) it has more game and the world itself doesn't even take itself seriously.

      Basically UO was just supposed to be there an example of what sorta looks like the former. It has an _outstanding_ community, _the_ best interface for a social player, lots of social options (e.g., housing), and very friendly and very social players. I've praised UO (the UO after non-PK facets were introduced, anyway) as a social place myself, you know. But... well, even if I don't rant about what happened in 1999 again, we can aggree that at the moment (even if by virtue of being 8 year old) it lacks most gameplay elements of the newer ones. Right?

      Being 8 years old (or 2 years old in 1999 when EQ took over) does give it an excuse, but it might actually be good for the point I was trying to make there. If you took a new player, say, from the 5 million that joined in the last year, and gave him a choice of "hey, you can choose between (A) this game which is old and pretty much outdated as a game, but has this great community and lots of social stuff, and (B) this new game with all the _gameplay_ devices and all, but no community yet, and lacks a lot of social stuff", most of them have already chosen B.

      Basically people chose the more modern game, over the outdated one with the great community. I think we can at least aggree that it's no big surprise that people chose a more modern game, right?

      Well, in the end that was the whole point I was making (even if we disaggree about what happened with UO in 1999): that the game part matters. The one with a better _game_ (even if by sheer virtue of being 7 years newer) got more subscribers.

      "There are lots of reasons why EQ and WoW have more subscribers than UO. To isolate one difference ("world" vs. "game"), and suggest that it is the only, or even primary, reason for the difference is ridiculous."

      Well, other than TSO, noone has that clear cut a distinction to make it a 100% case of "world" vs "game". So, yes, the best I can do is say that UO sorta falls somewhere in that quadrant, and WoW sorta falls somewhere in the other quadrant. Or it looks to me like it falls there.

      "Then you go on to rant about things like PKs and the usefulness of tinkering, which serve no purpose other than to further bash UO; they're completely irrelevant to the discussion."

      No, they were not irrelevant at all. They were aimed to illustrate the case that UO was a "world" but not that great a "game". If you don't want examples from the "lack of game" department, here are three from the "more like a world" department: self-sustaining ecology, advanced management/allocation of resources for the economy, player-run IC justice. All three were hyped by Origin itself as making it a better/more realistic "world", and all three got removed by Origin itself because it made it a worse "game".

      Yes, personal opinion, etc. Still, just saying: that's why it was there, not as some sort of axe-grinding or anything equally silly.

      "But you have to admit it's pretty silly to expect an 8-year-old game to compete favorably with a brand new one."

      According to Game Spy Stats, Half Life still tops their chart for number of active players right now. Of course, that's because of Counter-Strike, which is sorta the whole point: a game or mod that invented a sub-genre, even after 8 years kept more players than its much-more modern clones. (And in an also interesting twist, Top Mods For Half Life By Players says the original CounterStrike beats the newer CS: Condition Zero clone by 10 to 1.)

      Still, ok, I'll admit, for most games time isn't that kind.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    7. Re:In theory it sounds good by nikehoek · · Score: 1

      What is UO for a platform/game ? I do belive that Habbo is succesfull because its grphical and therefore by most played as a game ie. roleplaying game - and at the same time dont have heavy rules .. In a world like habbo you cant lvl by playing a lot..only by learning/chatting. I personally play wow..Blizzard succeds by not having a complex ruleset that frightens casual players.

  14. How to design another MMORPG like the others? by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 2, Interesting
    When the article says
    The secrets to a really long-lived, goal-oriented, online game of wide appeal
    I can't stop on thinking "why the hell people still want to build goal-oriented games"?

    See, if the objective is (and it is, read previous /. articles on gaming) to create a Virtual World where people have to ability to do anything they want, games shouldn't have goals, but it's "citizens" (gamers, users, call them what you want) may have and must have the freedom to have their own goals.

    1. Re:How to design another MMORPG like the others? by Reapy · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      Though I wonder without any goals, will people become very bored quickly?

      A good example I can think of is secondlife. There are no goals, and often times you stand there thinking, ok theres nothing to do besides chat.

      But secondlife is somewhat limited, as achieving any sort of goal you might want in the game requires lots of work and sometimes money to build what you want.

      I don't know, it is a fascinating idea. But doing it so it is not boring is difficult. Very difficult. Eh it hurts my head trying to come up with ideas, but that's why I just play games and don't make em :)

    2. Re:How to design another MMORPG like the others? by Mind+Booster+Noori · · Score: 1

      The perfect scenario is if it gets _as_ boring as life is, no more no less. Of course that a different world, with different phisics, history, society et al will make the relative "boredom" of life impossible to compare...

    3. Re:How to design another MMORPG like the others? by Phil+Resch · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it should be noted that for all the freedom we have in life (ideally), we still have goals.

      These may be set by ourselves: "I'm going to learn to ski!"

      These may be decided for us: "Well, I need to eat or I'm going to die. I should find food."

      And they may change organically over time: "I need to do well in high school so I can get into a good college" changes to "I need to do well in college so I can get a good job" changes to "I need to get a better job so we can afford to live somewhere with a good school system for my daughter to attend."

      I think the real trick lies in providing players with a variety of goals, but also letting the players deviate from these goals in personally meaningful ways. Provide a framework, a place to start. And then provide a way--in-game--for players to make the experience their own.

      We do it in real life. Society (at least, white-collar American society) tells us we should go to college so we can get a good job. But looking at a cross section of Slashdotters, you'll see that a lot of them will have skipped straight to "get a good job." Because it was more meaningful to skip that college thing.

      Of course, if I knew how to balance free-form and goal oriented gameplay in the ways I'm suggesting, I'd be rich, famous, or maybe just suicidal from having all of my ideas stifled in the name of corporate risk avoidance.

  15. Don't listen to the fool by cpu_fusion · · Score: 1

    Whatever Raph says, just remember that he's the guy that took the Star Wars franchise and managed to make a crappy MMRPG out of it.

    His ego is even bigger than his gut.

  16. All I want is The World from .hack//sign by LordJezo · · Score: 1

    Now that was an MMO world to live in! I saw the anime before ever even playing an MMO so that was what I thought things were really like, minus the whole VR bit.

    So I went out and bought FFXII. And CoH, and tried SWG, and CoH, and DOaC.

    Nothing was as good as the anime.

    Instead I went out and bought the soundtrack to the show and just listened to that. Much more fun in my opinion then the current crop of games out there.

    But one day we will have the intense immersive world that The World was in .hack//sign. Until then I will just sit here in reality.

  17. Old news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Eternal Lands (www.eternal-lands.com/eternal-lands.net) already does this. Its also open-source and free.

    It's pride is no specific class (forcing of) etc

    -BePlacid.com

  18. Hey, this applies to any RPG... by DarkYoshi · · Score: 1

    Because that is exactly how Golden Sun and Golden Sun: The lost age are made. If you have played them, you will know that they are two of the best RPGs ever made.

  19. Casual play by ureshii_akuma · · Score: 1

    One of the biggest problems I've had with MMOs is the focus on "meaningful milestones" far apart instead of many more less significant ones closer together. As a casual gamer, I usually lose interest in these games in the higher levels, where your only milestones come from levels that are massively apart. I would like to see a game where, if it chose to have these massive levels, had sublevels as well, with smaller rewards. Unfortunately, most high level content and game design ignores the casual gamer completely.

    1. Re:Casual play by CDarklock · · Score: 1

      The flaw there is that the casual gamer is never supposed to *get* to the high levels. The assumption is that casual gamers will play for a while, then quit. Meanwhile, the hardcore gamers get bored with frequent milestones, so they need to be moved farther apart.

      I've always thought it would be more productive to have a game with multiple unrelated objectives. Do away with the single measure of power, and let people figure out on their own what they want to do. In theory, the casual gamer will then settle into something with frequent milestones, while the hardcore gamer tackles massive tasks that bear fruit once a month.

      The only way to do this effectively is the way GTA and "The Sims" have done it: model interesting systems until interesting behavior naturally falls out of them. It's possible to amuse yourself for extended periods in GTA without completing more than one or two missions, and "The Sims" doesn't even *have* missions.

      But nobody ever listens to me. Which is just fine, because if I ever have the funding and the time to build it, I'll have no competition. ;)

      --
      Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
    2. Re:Casual play by Reapy · · Score: 1

      First we need to stop this trendy "I'm Casual" "I'm hardcore" bs. It is a stupid generality and there is no point for making "casual" content vs "hardcore" content.

      The idea is basic. If I spend more time on any game, theretically I will be better then you at it. If we are playing quake and I play 4 hours a day 7 days a week, and you play saturday and sunday for 8 hours each but cant during the week becuase of a job, I am going to have more time with the game and be more "on point" because I play frequently.

      The problem with mmo's is that power is proportional to time. There is some luck invovled with most in terms of things dropping, but for the most part, if I have spent more time with the game then you I am going to be more powerful via in game mechanics. Even if you are my friend and we are not competing, I will be unable to play the game with you because you aren't powerful enought to tackle the opponents that challenge me.

      Content isn't "casual" or "hardcore" it is content weighed vs time and skill. Most people want skill, because there is a light at the end of a tunnel that isnt 400 hours of gameplay long.

      All of our current MMORPGs are time sinks, to be better is to play longer. Knowledge can't defeate persistance.

      Of coarse, when we say skill, we mean everyone is equally powerful, except one person can use the tools given to him to do a better job then the other. By doing this, you remove all player growth from the equasion, whis is a central theme for any RPG game.

      The thing I find interesting is most people don't want an MMO. MMO's are a big joke as far as I am concerned, and we would all be better served playing games in 64 person arenas. When is the last time you were in an mmo with over 200 people doing something at once that wasn't lagged to shit and unplayable? In fact most of the fun I've had in mmo's are with a small group of friends achieving an objective without being disturbed (wow instances for example).

      Just for the fact that people find wow instancing to be one of the main draws to the game just goes to show that WE DON'T WANT MASSIVE GAMES!

      MMO's are a flawed idea. They need to branch.

      One has to go the way of the sandbox. This is where the world needs to be massive. Lots of tools to do lots of interesting things in the world. Economy, crafting, fighting, townbuilding, you name it, it'll have it. The focus has to be away from leveling and more towards activites, creating a simulated world. This type will be boring for most, but others who want to really get into character and into he world will love it.

      The other type is a smaller scale game. There are less people in the game, but you can connect to a server and show off your guy by joining random games. Because the game is smaller scale, you can actually incorperate action based combat. Meaning you litterly dodge attacks and run around the monster hitting it on different sides with your sword or run away keeping your distance throwing magic.

      That is really what we want. When we go massive you can't have action, and the only other way to get skill in there is to throw in a puzzle game midfight or something. So the one genera has to stick to the sandbox world, where it can get massive and use the tricks it needs to in order to handle the bandwith issues, and the other needs to be the skill games that have to go smaller to allow the increasted interaction we all want.

      Sorry to get so off topic. I guess the summary is, lets stop wasting our breath trying to label ourselves and discuss the real ideas behind the labels.

  20. Redefining "Casual Gamers" by UberMench · · Score: 1

    I agree that high level milestones in MMOGs are spread too far apart, and here's why:

    In general, (which is to say in almost all cases), milestones are not skill based, but based on persistence and available free time. Now, I am a hardcore gamer, but I simply don't have the time it takes to achieve even what I would consider basic levels of usefullness. i.e. - I spent hours a day for months playing SWG and was still unable to face any sort of opponent that was remotely strong. After a while, crushing kittens just isn't fun. The same thing went for WoW.

    The fact of the matter is this, as a full time engineering student who has to find time for games between homework, research, and my fiance, I am unable to derive much satisfaction from playing MMORPGs. I am, however, impressed by and enjoying BF2, although it also suffers from horrendus gaps between ranks. But at least all players in BF2 are balanced. If I am a PFC, my bullets can still kill a Sgt. because, unlike MMORPGs, he doesn't get a 5,000 point health and armor bonus for having spent 8 hours a day for 2 years on the game. The gameplay is SKILL based.

    MMOGs need this aspect in order to attract and keep gamers that also have real-world responsibilities, but still love gaming.

    P.S. - A note to all you game devs out there: These people are the ones who have the expendable income to subscribe to these massive games, and they should therefore be given appropriate levels of attention in order to attract their business.

    --
    If video games are created by teams of designers and artists, how are they not art??? www.skylarscaling.com
  21. Like your know it all brother.. by ConceptDog · · Score: 1

    This guy lost all credibility with me when he put out the steaming pile that is SWG. If he had put out a good game, I might be more apt to listen to what he has to say.

    SWG was his chance to prove his 'design theory' in practice.

    Those who can, do. Those who can't write a crappy blog about it and promote their folk music.

  22. In regards to... by nops · · Score: 1

    Macroing, botting, and automation No matter what you do, someone is going to automate the process of playing your world. Corollary: Looking at what parts of your game players tend to automate is a good way to determine which parts of the game are tedious and/or not fun. Seeing as people macro everything from dancing to crafting to grinding Jedi, makes you wonder what part of SWG is fun, eh?

    1. Re:In regards to... by Big_Breaker · · Score: 1

      I thought that "law" was one of the most insightful comments I have heard on macroing. I agree with the author. Anything that is being macro'd by players should be replaced with a server-side NPC or server hosted player script (IE embrace the macroing). If replacing the macro'r with an NPC is nonsensical, IE combat related, than the game mechanic is a failure and needs to be replaced.

  23. SOE are the real fools here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The incompetence of SOE is the biggest factor in the crappiness of their games. I'll bet Raph himself is even complaining.

  24. Obviously it's by 2008 · · Score: 1

    writing the macros!

    --
    I quit!
  25. disjointed and largely obsolete by mothlos · · Score: 1

    This is just a bunch of thoughts about things and is really just feelings devs got after the EQ age. It fails to even address the important issues that the current round of games are trying to address with various levels of failure. Let's throw out the soundbyte length 'laws' and bring around a discussion.

  26. the guy got it all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing wrong with big boobs. I have big boobs, so whats the big deal? Stop stereotyping as people dont have big boobs. Enough already.Obviously he doesnt have a problem that every guy has huge muscles, knows kung fu. Give it a break.

      Leave my big boobs alone!

  27. Which way is he looking? by totalbasscase · · Score: 1

    The article kind of takes on two different meanings as you go down the two branches. Are you trying to make money, or are you trying to create a game that does what it says it does?
    Case in point, SWG. The box said I'd get to live inside Star Wars. I wound up hacking at small frogs with a survival knife. Earth and Beyond felt more like Star Wars to me than that, in all honesty. Yet in comes the revenue, thank you Luca$' $tamp Of Approval$.
    Meanwhile any half-healthy MUX/MUSH can engross a player for months, provided they have a firm grasp of the English language and are willing to do without the splashy graphics (and the monthly fees); and of course provided the admins are willing to donate their time.
    I like the part where he says keep the pop under 250. I don't like the part where he says it's not a game. Yeah, it is a game, and the people who forget that are the ones you wind up not missing when you go back to the real world.

    --
    Fragging my father since 2004