Slashdot Mirror
Rethinking the MMOG
Gamasutra is running a piece right now called Rethinking the MMO. Game designer Neil Sorens takes issue with some of the consistent blights on the traditional Massive gaming experience, like the phenomenon of the 'ordinary' hero, and the extremely large time investment required to 'get anywhere'. Though he doesn't offer a lot in the way of concrete solutions to these issues, his appraisal of the genre is sure to spark a few conversations: "As long as developers and publishers do nothing but copy what is successful, they--and gamers--will continue to miss out on these games' staggeringly awesome potential. And as long as [MMOGs] are designed by and for stat geeks (whom I know and love and sometimes am) with little regard for traditional game design fundamentals, they will continue to waste that potential."
'ordinary' hero, and the extremely large time investment required to 'get anywhere'.
If you had an extraordinary hero who could do everything right off the bat, what would make him/her extraordinary then?
Monstar L
Apparently he's never played Test Drive Unlimited (an MMO Racer), Chromehounds (an MMO Mech game)... or read any previews for the upcoming Huxley (an MMO FPS).
Collector's Edition
5. What about griefing? There's always idiots that do that. How do we deal with them?
America's Army has the best solution to that - the in-game Army Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth.. "If a player violates enough ROE he is transported to a virtual jail cell at Fort Leavenworth with nothing to do but clink against the bars, pondering his sins. As if to create remorse, one can view the tip of a sunset from the lone, high window the cell but only if one is standing on the toilet."
I signed-up for a 14-day trial of Eve Online. As a fan of Descent, Wing Commander, and Trade Wars I thought I would love this game. After a few days I realized the game was awesome, vast, huge, addictive, and... boring. I think the problem with Eve is that it is _too_ real. I wasn't playing the game - it was playing me. To make progress, I had to spend 15-minute blocks of time watching my ship fly from point A to point B. Or watching a meter count down telling me my character completed some task like building something. *yawn*
I keep hearing that classic linear offline games are boring and limiting and going away. But that's like saying that a book is too limiting because it only has one possible outcome. With a video game or a book, I want to be the hero, I want to see the journey. I don't want to be thrown into a world where my only goal is to make money or get bigger. What fun is that? I can do that in real life.
The interesting thing about WoW is that it didn't refine it more than it dumbed it down. Everyone else was fighting to make their game more challenging, more epic in scale, and more intense graphics. Blizzard in turn made their game easier to access, smaller in scale and easier to travel due to easy transportation, and less intense graphics.
In turn they opened the door to the average Joe who always secretly though D&D and online gaming might be fun if it wasn't for the "nerds" and the amount of time it would take out of their life. They also set the system specs low enough to where anyone with a somewhat modern computer could play it. However, through this "dumbing down" (which I'm not using as a derogatory statement, I'll be the first to say that a lot of MMO's are unnecessarily difficult in a lot of respects) they alienated a lot of the original core audience of MMORPG's. For every WoW player (well, maybe not every seeing that there's so many of them) that makes an joke about EverQuest players, you can be assured that there's an EQ player that's making a crack about WoW "carebear" players.
The core problem is that you'll always have 3 core audiences: Casual players, power levelers/stat whores, and RPGers who are all looking for distinctly different gaming experiences and because of this there's never going to be the typical progression path for the genre. I think because of this, articles that talk about "rethinking the genre" have it all wrong. How do you rethink a genre that everyone wants to jump into, yet appeals (in different ways) to such a diverse audience? Do we rethink the genre or do we finally give up on trying to appeal to everybody and focus on certain core audiences? I think that's the one thing that Blizzard did get right on WoW...they went out of their way to appeal to the casual gamer. Until someone designs a game grand enough in scale to encompass a caste system to divide and account for different play styles or creates a game with seperate servers that drastically alter the game play for each type of player, I think we're better off picking a target audience and sticking with it.
Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
When I used to play chess against someone who knows what they are doing, I tended to get my ass handed to me. I didn't play chess all that often, so this should not come as a surprise. For one summer, I played chess a lot. I actually got pretty decent at the game and could hold my own against most people instead of the usual ass kicking I came to expect. Even today (now out of practice) I can put up a decent fight. The same goes for FPS, even ones I have never played. Why is it that I can pick up either of these games after having not played for a while and if not dominate, at least hold my own?
The answer is simple. These are games of skill. If I decided to play chess or Counter Strike against someone who had been playing it for 2 years straight, they might kick my ass, but not because they have a super Queen that can teleport across the game board while I only have pawns, nor because everyone else starts out with shoot-through-walls rail guns while I start with a knife.
Playing most MMORPGs is like playing chess against someone with a teleporting queen while you get three pawns, or playing Counter strike where you start with a knife and everyone else gets instant kill rapid fire laser guns. MMORPGs stack the game against you twice. First, people who play more will be more skilled at playing (make sense, eh?). Second though, the game also rewards them a thousand times over for playing a lot. So, not only do you play with people who are more experienced, but have the MMORPG equivalent of teleporting Queens against your two pawns.
Start a n00b off in Counter Strike or Chess, and the n00b at least has the possibility of winning. Take the most skilled WoW player in existence, give him a level 1 character, and make him fight a level 60 no matter what happens, the level 60 will always win.
This is the reason why a lot of people loath MMORPGs. I love the idea of a massive online world with other players to interact with, quest with, and fight with (or against). What I hate is that MMORPGs unlike most other multiplayer games, is that MMORPGs DEMAND that you spend thousands of hours of your life in them before you are even given something that kinda-sorta resembles and even footing with the top players.
Why can't we have an MMORPG where the older and more experience are not given the double bonus of l33t stats and equipment in addition to superior skill at playing that they should have developed?
Hell, I'll answer the question. The reason why MMORPGs used this worthless system is because they have simple and basic gameplay. If in an MMORPG your stats/numbers/equipment didn't constantly slide upwards, people would simply quit the game. The game play is so dull that MMORPGs need to rely on addiction to seeing stats go up to keep people in these games. Take out of the 'achievement' aspect that comes with killing 10,000 kobolds and people would not suffer the horrible and repetitive gamplay of an MMORPG. The gameplay of MMORPGs does not stand on its own for very long. Hence, we have piles of MMORPGs with atrocious game play that retain players by keeping them addicted to the 'achievement' aspect of their repetitive gameplay.
When you see an MMORPG that can stand on the merits of its actual game play and not rely on hopeless addiction to watching stats slowly tick up, you will be seeing the first TRUE second generation MMORPG... not the copy cat Everquest crap that is spaming the market right now.
1. Yea, it sucks. MMORPGs are designed to be the only game you will play for months. A typical RPG game has about 20-30 hours of gameplay, and took about a year to make. Try to scale that to people who play 20-30 hours per week and keep them occupied for several months, without grinding and you will find you will never complete the game.
2. High level areas are fun for the first few times you do it. They are designed as a real challange. But once you figured out the challange, yes they can get boringin when you are forced to run it time and time again. But these areas are the limit point of content, where there just isn't anymore. So these areas have to strech out the remaining content as long as possible.
3.People are attracted to MMORPGs due to their low cost, at around only 15$ per month it can save you a lot of money on buying games. Professional GMs will drasticly increase the game cost, and you have the problem of some GMs being "easier" than others. In pen and paper each GM can run their own world with their own rules. Try to scale this to an MMORPG and the GMs world will collide in horrid ways.
4. In WoW different encounters require different stragities. Pretty much every boss end level, you are either going to wipe several times on the first go, or you look up what stragity to use. For most people, the AI stragities and the counter-stragities are well known. If you want something more intresting, go and create a smart AI... tell us when you are done, so we can nominate you for a Nobel Prize.
5. Most games give ways to avoid griefing. In WoW... don't play on a PvP server; if you are PvP just wait 5 minutes before resurection. If its a quest NPC... do something else. This is a sacrifice by letting players have more control over their enviroment; some abuse this feature.
6. MMOs can have their own content, but it could not be connected to the real content, as in you could not simply allow a player to create a monster that drops some awsome uber item. Runescape does allow player made dungeons (although a bit limited). You can create your own content without limitation in Neverwinter Nights, but characters in different user's enviroments cannot interact without GMs permission (like in pen and paper games).
7. Yep... several MMORPGs have that. Runescape has that in spades. And Eve is entirly based around that.
He also doesn't seem to realize that a single player RPG is very different from a MMORPG. For example:
Trust your ability to balance things later. That?s the easy part.
No. It most definitely is not. Example: I'm a relatively new member of the dev team at Eternal Lands, an open source, free (as in beer) MMORPG. Early on, the dev team had added in a sword worth an utter fortune to an NPC. It could be crafted, but took an obscenely high level to craft. Eventually (after some similar problems on a smaller scale), the devs came to the realization that once people reached that level, the market would be flooded: people would make those swords in bulk, sell them to the NPC, and completely destroy the game's economy. Fixing it got on their TODO list, but wasn't a top priority item. There was so much else to develop, and hey, nobody was near that manufacturing level yet. A minor oversight, though: you can get blessings from your god (including the manufacturing God) to temporarily up your levels -- all for just a 50 gold fee. The high level manufacturers started making and selling the swords in bulk and threw the economy out of whack.
Now it's out of whack. How do you fix it? Not only do the manufacturers now have obscene amounts of money, but through their purchases, they've messed up the amount of money that others have. Do you just roll back the entire game to a few months prior? Good way to lose almost your entire player base. It took a long time for them to rebalance the game, and they lost a number of players in the process.
In short: NEVER trust your ability to rebalance things later. That's the HARD part. Plan everything to death before you hook it in.
How come things that happen to stupid people keep happening to me?
A repost of a comment I made on a previous topic, but still relevant here
c id=18031488
Perhaps a majority of the problem is the ridiculously unrealistic gap between an experienced warrior and one with relatively less experience.
I think the entire problem would resolve itself if the difference between a level 1 character's fighting ability and a level 90 character's fighting ability was significantly less.
In an MMORPG environment, if 3 level 1 characters could gang up and take down someone who has reached the highest point you can reach, then I think the entire concept of the grind would take a back seat to interesting gameplay.
PlanetSide is an MMOFPS that takes this concept and deals with it quite well. You can spend your points each level to gain the ability to use new weapons or vehicles, with some abilities having pre-requisite abilities. If you want, you can trade the abilities back for the points you used to earn them, but you can only 'sell' one ability every 6 hours. Once you're level 8 or so, you have access to pretty much everything the game has to offer, and further levels only serve to expand the number of things you can do at once -- essentially expanding your flexibility. But by no means is a level 20 character STRONGER than a level 8 character, they simply have more venues of attack.
Original Comment: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=222646&
I can't RTFA right now because I'm at work and they block "Gaming" sites at our proxy, but based on what I've read from everyone else's comments it sounds like they're looking at the wrong problems. There are certain things that players have always griped about, and I should know, I've been a player in a lot of MMOs, including the pre-cursor to modern MMOs MUDs. The problem is, what players gripe about, and what is really wrong with current MMOs are two very different things. Players don't really mind the level grind all that much, it's part of the point, if you had a button you could push that would instantly take you to max level with full skills no one would bother playing because there was no challenge. What keeps people coming back is the reward of all that effort paying off. In traditional linear games the payoff is getting to the end and killing that last big boss, saving the world. In an MMO the payoff is the accolades you get from the other players for reaching end game, and being able to play your character in a skillfull way. This is part of the reason why many MMOs have ridiculously hard end game content, so that it weeds out the average players from the great players, and provides incentive for the average players to get better.
If you really wanted to improve an MMO, the thing is not to do away with things like the level grind, but to provide more interactive persistant environment in a way that dosn't destabilize the game. Now, I never said it would be easy of course, because if it was it would have been done already, but if it can be done, the results will be amazing. What players want more than anything else, is to feel both powerful, and to have an impact on the game world. They want that feeling of walking through a town filled with lower level players, and everybody going "Oh man, there he goes, he killed an entire battalion by himself." or even the respect of there fellow equals (or enemies). At the same time they also want the ability to do something with an impact on the game world, they want to be able to have at least a semi-perminent effect on the scenery and creatures around them. Even if it's only something minor like wiping out a colony of pesky kobolds that have been harasing a nearby town (and not having them all immediatly respawn for the next player). Now the tricky part is that you need to do this in a way that dosn't ruin things for the next player either intentionaly or un-intentionaly.
Which brings me to one of the biggest true gripes players have, which is of course, other players. The problem is, no matter what you do, there will always be those that will be determined to ruin things for everyone else, either by exploiting a flaw in the game, or by harasing other players. The only real solution to this is to provide some way for players to police themselves. This is part of the reason I play on a PvP server, because if someone is harasing me, I can always call on a few of my friends to kill him a few times, and that usually gets the message across that they should go do something else.
Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
The best massively multiplayer online game I've seen or heard of, bar none, is Tom Vogt's BattleMaster. (Said Tom is actually a Slashdot regular, too, and with a 3-digit UID ;-) ) While it is not perfect (as what can be?) and is more or less in a state of perpetual beta (which I find a great deal of fun, but others wouldn't), it does a great job, in general, of dealing with the powergamers who want to turn the whole thing into a numbers game, and does its best to give even casual gamers the chance to participate meaningfully (ie, invest ~15 mins/day, and keep up pretty well with those who invest 15 mins/hour).
BattleMaster is a roleplaying strategy game, where the player has a small family of nobles who can command troops in any of several different classes. The real key here is that in BattleMaster, there is precious little centrally-provided content: the interaction between the players is, essentially, the whole game. Which isn't to say that it's pure, text-based roleplaying (though the game is entirely text-based, aside from the maps); it has a relatively comprehensive system that helps to model a medieval European setting, complete with diplomacy, battles, wars, etc. But all the story is created by the players.
It's a heck of a lot of fun, and I've been playing it for the past 3 years and more. I don't explain it too well, so take a look at the site, linked both above and in my sig.
If someone were to take the concept and make a commercial MMORPG out of it, I dare say they could do pretty darn well--at least, once they had enough players signed up to populate a large area. The fun is directly proportional to the complexity of the system, which grows out of the number of people playing...
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
My experience with MMOs is pretty limited: I played some UO during the launch, played YoHoHo! Puzzle Pirates for a few months, and tried Second Life once. My understanding is that, for the most part (and particularly WoW) they're about dungeon-leveling. Kill monsters, level up, kill bigger monsters, continue. There's not much variety in what you can do. The Ultima series (and to some extent Bethesda's Elder Scrolls) gave you some variety: you can spend hours, if not days, not killing monsters and still enjoy it. As the article mentions, there's other MMOs: puzzle ones, racing ones, sports ones, FPSs ones.
Well... what if all those were one and the same? More on that in a second. A quick look at MMOG Chart reveals the market to be, at most, about 15 million players. Considering the increasing popularity of the genre, increasing access to broadband worldwide, and economic conditions worldwide, the market will be increasing. Maybe some day there will be 30 million or 50 million MMO players.
What this means is that there's room for other types of games (I can see a Cabela's Big Game Hunt MMO as being appealing). If Ultima Online can survive a decade on 100,000 subscribers, we could see an explosion of focused , low-population MMOs if the overall market keeps increasing. It would just be a continuation of what we see today.
But back to my earlier question? Why do these all need to be separate games? Why can't they all be in one?
What if there was a game that combined all of these elements and let players decide what they wanted to do? I'll put my example in "real-world" terms but this would obviously be modified to sci-fi or fantasy terms as needed. Let's say you've got a dog breeder that wants to breed his prize dogs with a specific type of wild dog (this player largely plays a Nintendogs-type of sub-game). This wild dog is only found in a very dangerous nature reserve (dungeon) controlled by an enemy territory. He'd have to hire mercenaries to infiltrate and capture this animal (traditional combat MMO players). The enemy territory also has players protecting their resources.
Let's say something needs to be transported. Ordinarily, you might be able to use in-game methods (CPU controlled) but you may need to hire a smuggler to take it (combat driving game). The goal of this, the end result is to have a lot of different sub-communities while on the larger scale, you've got a lot of players you're interacting with.
I think that's the "next level" in MMOs and it would solve a lot of the problems with current ones (albeit introducing new ones).
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
Blizzard in turn made their game easier to access, smaller in scale and easier to travel due to easy transportation, and less intense graphics. Making it accessible and dumbing it down are completely different things. An intuitive GUI is far more complex than one that is "dumbed down". I do realize you're not using that as derogatory, but it's difficult to separate the two. It's really quite complex the way they handled it. In addition, they made the interface nearly completely programmable, which allows gamers to truly geek-out and enhance their own experience.
Blizzard graphics in WoW are actually quite intense. They have their own style and incredibly complex textures. They use fewer polygons in some areas, but are not blocky because they avoid the blockiness by reducing the number of 90-degree angles. (Thus, things don't look blocky to the eye -- cf: City of Heroes.) Many small items or sections use lots of polygons to give it a "full" and complex feel even when surrounding things are relatively low poly counts.
The main gameplay thing that wow mostly eliminated was camping global spawns. If getting rid of what most people consider an utterly stupid concept is "dumbing it down" then I want to play that dumb game. Some people actually enjoyed that aspect of competition in EQ -- but most people who have outgrown pimples eschew such games. Blizzard took most of the best parts of many games, and did it right, making a fun game and hoped people would play it instead of implementing cheesy tricks to keep people playing longer. They also know their audience isn't the hardcore kid with nothing better to do than call his 20 friends when a spawn happened. It's now the somewhat richer adult, often with a wife and kids, who has a few hours here and there to play, and most importantly is willing to pony up $15/month to have fun during that time.
They also have some of the "hardcore" kind of things that others have grown to recognize, and love/hate it. I'm talking 40-man raids (recently changed to 25-man), which are difficult.
The only thing that's actually dumbed down is pvp. And even that could be changed, if they wanted, without affecting other worlds. There are actually only 2 groups of people - casuals and powergamers, and people fall between those two. PvPers are often a subset of powergamers, and RPers may be anything.
Of the three groups people you discuss, no matter what game, the casuals will always bitch about the powergamers who will always bitch about the RPers, who will always bitch (in ye olde english) about everyone who doesn't RP. But WoW actually caters to the three groups much better than other games, and I'd even say succeeds quite well. You can accomplish something as a casual, and you can accomplish something as a powergamer. And there's a little corner for thee, Master RPer. Goeth now and stand there and leaveth the rest alone
Would they improve with a better story line instead of hack and slash? Potentially but you don't really see a lot of this in the pen and paper version of RPGing either. Sure, the GM can entertain and let the group run about with little crazy side adventures but in the end it always comes down to the same question: How much XP to the next level?
I think this varies a lot from DM to DM and system to system. White Wolf in particular has a system that really doesn't push for stating. In fact, the thing that made each of the White Wolf (VTM and WW) campaigns I've played in so much fun WAS the story. I'm a geek, through and through, I have geek friends. I used to go to hang out at a local Perkins and recap the game, in story format, to some of my geeky (but not geeky enough to dice) friends. Heck, you kick back in the smoking section and tell a chapter of an epic story and people get interested. I had one guy ask me if I was talking about a movie script. The retelling of those stories was often as much fun as playing them the first time too.
In a MMO video game, I don't think it would have much of an impact though. For two reasons:
1) The games are stat dependent. It doesn't matter how well you know the Barron, his aura is going to smack you and you need the gear (stats) to survive it.
2) As soon as anything is done once, instructions are posted on the web. It doesn't matter if you spend 4 days in the libraries learning all you can about the boss, when it comes down to it, someone can just look up the encounter on thottbot or wowhead and know it all.
Think about it, if you're telling a story from a pen and paper game to another gamer, it's new and different. If you're telling a story about how you took out a boss in WoW to another WoW player, they're going to respond with "Oh yeah, my guild took him out last week."
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs