Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What actually Constitutes a "Next-Gen" MMORPG?
rollnstns
Member Posts: 53
just wondering.
Thanks!
Comments
Basically, in terms of the video gaming industry of course, "next gen" constitutes any game produced outside of the current crop of games. It's cyclical really, each year a new "generation" of games are produced which are all supposedly more "advanced" than the generation previous but really all that title means is that it came out after the others.
Hype, and marketing aside all that a game has to do to be "next gen" is be released a year or two after the last games released in the genre.
Is it for the 360? Well that's 1 generation past the XBox. That's "Next Gen".
As far as "Generations" of MMOs go? I don't think we'll hit 3rd for quite some time. See if the move to 3D was the 2nd Generation, then obviously the move to Virtual Reality or those funny little goggles we all used to wear while playing Rad Racer will be the 3rd Gen.
...I wonder if you can do that with LCDs... I should totally try that...
- CaesarsGhost
Lead Gameplay and Gameworld Designer for a yet unnamed MMO Title.
"When people tell me designing a game is easy, I try to get them to design a board game. Most people don't last 5 minutes, the rest rarely last more then a day. The final few realize it's neither fun nor easy."
More to come as I think of them...
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
John Lennon
The above posters are correct to be skeptical about the term "Nex Gen" when it's applied to MMORPGs. The games in this genre have become so expensive to produce that "follow the leader" has become an industry norm. These days, all anyone seems to be doing is acquiring a well known IP and then copying and pasting the tried and true EQ/ WoW grindfest onto it without any attempt at examining how to further the cause of creating a true virtual world.
But, that doesn't mean "Next Gen" as a concept doesn't exist for MMORPGs. Fundamental questions still abound with regards to a whole slew of things when it comes to MMORPGs. Such as:
1) How do we design a MMORPG that allows players the ability to actually change their virtual world in a meaningful way while at the same time preventing veteran players/ "hardcore" players from monopolizing content at the expense of new players/ casual players? How do we design systems of crime and punishment that work? Politics and espionage? Dynastic rises and falls (whether it be political or economical)? How do we do all these things while keeping the game "fun" and balanced between casual and hardcore players?
2) Is it possible to design a truly closed economy in a MMORPG? Closed economy, as defined by Richard Bartle, is: "...internally consistent...Resources are taken from the virtual world at the rate they are returned to it." Or will we always be stuck with the "faucet-drain" template of current MMORPGs? This is an important question because the economies of many of these games tend to influence the goals of many of the players. A "faucet-drain" economy encourages things like gold farming, gear grinding, and just plain ol' loot whoring as the sole reason for playing the game.
3) Can we design an advancement system that somehow avoids the grind? We need to understand that players need some way to measure the status of their characters, but does a more circular and less linear system exist? The current crop of MMORPGs and MMORPG players have already been confronted with this question. Everytime you hear someone say, "The REAL game begins when you hit the level cap," what they really mean is that the grind is a necessary evil. Is it really though? And does the current set-up where the end-game consists entirely of loot whoring Raids and meaningless PvP really represent the pinnacle of what "end game" means?
I don't pretend to have the answers to any of these questions, but I think they're worth thinking about. "Next Gen" to me doesn't mean photo-realistic graphics or just throwing more of the same old shite against the wall in the hopes that something sticks. It means somehow crafting a user-friendly and flexible game system and coupling it with a living, breathing, changeable virtual world while at the same time balancing the needs of a diverse group of players.
C
It is overly abused as a marketing term though, there's been bigger crimes than Vanguard's 'third-generation' assessment of Vanguard; such as Mutable Realms' Wish's attempt at skipping generations all together and be the 'Ultimate' MMORPG.
The best definition of 'next gen' to me is the one thing the developers can actually agree upon, that MMOs are supposed to be evolutionary with some revolutionary content.
Evolutionary means effectively looking at past MMOs, nitpicking what can be improved upon and then doing it. The concept of time separating generations of MMOs goes along with this, because obviously there needs to be an ample amount to observe past and ongoing MMOs.
Revolutionary is what's truly generation defining though. It's inventing rather than merely improving, and a significant enough invention can grow to be generation defining; such as instancing for second generation MMOs.
Now you have games like Warhammer, Tabula Rasa and Guild Wars 2 on the horizon with new ideas of how to use instancing and evolve it by improving upon it's problems. Players predominantly have complained about lack of immersion and detachment from the overall world; all things those games in particular have their own ways of attempting to rectify.
There's plenty other tidbit examples, there's never any one single thing that's generation defining, even though something like instancing is obviously pretty predominant. It's pretty easy though to notice a generational leap, it's just not so easy to deem whether it's worth assigning a number to and when to.
Ultimately, it's probably best to identify a generational leap when a crop of games release within a relatively tight time period with similar evolutionary ideas with unique revolutionary ideas that might catch on for the next go around.
You could go on and equate Age of Conan's crazy combat system with the Matrix's interlock system. Tabula Rasa's mixing in of shooter elements with Planetside's more aggressive first-person shooter deal. Not to say those two games are going to fail similarly, just that they're doing their part in attempting to provide something revolutionary for their generation.
Who knows what will come out as generation defining; Age of Conan might finally break the target, press icon mold. Warhammer Online might finally break down the barrier between PvP and PvE making it the norm to level up off players just as you do NPCs. Tabula Rasa might pave the way for other genre of MMOs outside of typical high fantasy.
It's all about waiting and seeing, but certainly on a technical level something will come along to be mocked for half a decade just as instancing was. Certainly something will come along on a fiscal level sparking something different than the intellectual property mop up craze. And certainly something will come along sparking a new genre of things different than swords and sorcery (I quit when Madden is an MMO.)
Imo for a game to be even considered "Next-Gen". It has to provide innovation that will move the genre into a new era of gaming.
Just like we seen with WoW.
Games like AoC will push companies even harder than WoW did.
Currently Playing: Everything but MMORPGs
Cancelled: L2, FFXI, VSoH, LotRO, WAR, WoW
Looking Forward To: SW:TOR
Age of Conan and Lord of the Rings are both Games for Windows certified. Games for Windows is essentially a free marketing push by Microsoft to promote PC Gaming by standardizing box art and providing branded retail space, kiosks and such in stores similar to what consoles have always had.
If two MMOs have already bought into it, it's probably not stupid to expect that most others will too. One of the two, Age of Conan, is even going a step forward by including the Games for Windows requirement of using the Xbox 360 controller. I don't think Lord of the Rings is, there's a clause of "if applicable" when it comes to the controller; but it's worth noting that some MMOs of the future might be inclined towards fulfilling that criteria and break away from the target-and-click-icons mold.
Going even deeper in the Vista/Games for Windows deal, there's the whole 'Live Anywhere' or 'Games for Windows - Live' thing that allows cross-platform play with Microsoft's console, or just good ol' PC-only gaming. Besides the benefit of cross-platform play though are a host of community features that could create a global atmosphere for MMOs; and interface it through not just your PC or console, but your mobile devices.
Oh I sound like a shill. But come on, all of you people buying 8800s wouldn't mind chatting with your in-game guild on your Moto Q.
I suppose, then, when we see the term "next generation" tagged to any of these new games coming, we should be wary and skeptical of these claims.
It could be assume then that, at this time, MMO's are stagnant in terms of anything truly fresh and new. Most likely we'll be playing the same "cookie cutter, copy cat" games for the next decade.
Kind of sad that greed seems to take out the creativity out of MMO development...
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
John Lennon
Yeah, these are definitely three key criteria... and I'd add a couple more besides:
4) More immersive environment. This comprises many sub-factors, some of which are attempting to be addressed in the MMOs slated for this year, some are not. It includes such considerations as better art direction (not just more pixels and nodes, but an actual attempt to create a cohesive environment, populated by things that look and feel like they belong in there), smarter AI (not just dumb mobs standing around waiting to give pointless quests or be farmed), interactive/destructive environmental features, player interaction with the environment (housing, defensible strongholds), minimal or no instancing. Basically elements which make an MMO world feel real, organic and alive, not just a fishbowl that's always exactly the same every time you log in.
5) Meaningful PvP. This is always a contentious issue... many players aren't interested in playing competitively against others (often as a result of bad experiences through griefing, ganking, spawn camping etc). Part of the problem is that, in many games, there's no real reason for players to actually fight one another (beyond the sheer `joy' of it, which gets old fast). By creating useful and/or meaningful incentives for PvP, and more importantly creating consequences (good and bad) for doing so which will actually impact on the world, suddenly it becomes a feature worth participating in rather than just a mindless act for kids and lowbrows.
6) Skill-based combat. Most current MMOs are little more than glorified dice-rolling machines when it comes to combat - beyond the small amount of sentience required to hit your attack buttons in the prescribed sequence, and to know when it's time to run away, there's very little skill or challenge involved. Bringing MMOs more in line with other current games of various genres, which definitely DO require a much greater level of skill and tactics to master (and are consequently more rewarding when you do ) is a big part of making an MMO "next generation".
Basically, it's about making these games more realistic (and hence more immersive), and more challenging (since for most MMO vets the old 1-2-3 button-mash is getting pretty old). That, to me, is hat Next Generation gaming is truly about.
About point number #6 - oh, God, yes. The button mashing in a prescribed sequence system has gotten old, so, so old. At this point, it seems like instead of actually re-examining combat systems in a meaningful way, most developers are just adding MORE buttons to mash.
Many of the points being raised as to what constitutes a "Next Gen" leap for MMORPGs are probably a bit pie in the sky (my points included), but the one thing that can certainly be improved on without too much complications is the combat system for these games. While issues like immersion, player-control over the environment, meaningful economies, etc. all come bundled with layers and layers of potential difficulties, the combat system, I think, can be approached purely from a game design perspective.
As a matter of fact, I think combat systems, as a whole, have witnessed more evolution in MMORPGs than any other system in these games. Things like reactive counter-attacks, positional attacks, combat chains (both solo and group), and even something as fundamental as introducing an Endurance bar, have all moved MMORPG combat closer to something more interactive than mere button mashing. Of course, the evolution seems to have reached a bottleneck at the moment, but maybe future games like AoC and Tabula Rasa will remedy that.
However, as many of you will agree, MMORPG combat still pales in comparison to the sheer visceral thrill and sense of skillful accomplishment that a FPS delivers. The question becomes, then, how to marry these two combat systems together without a) sacrificing the statistics side of MMORPGs, and b) over-emphasizing the twitch element of FPSs to the point where MMORPG combat devolves into a clusterf**k of players running circles around each other and doing silly bunny hops instead of engaging in immersive combat?
So, I'm going to have to say I'd like to see next gen games get FARTHER away from twitch/personal "skill" (reflex) based stuff they all seem hot on doing now, and go back to a more "turn based" system where anyone of any twitch ability can play any character class. I say this realizing 99.9% of you will disagree with it, but that is my preference. In other words, given a choice between say, DDO's system (which is highly twitch based) and NWN's (which is turn based), I'd prefer NWN's. You don't, of course, have to agree (and many of you won't) but that is my preference.
C
You make a great point, Chessack. In my post just above your's, I mentioned that one of the challenges future MMORPGs are going to have if they want to move above the sequential button mashing style of combat system that currently pervades these games is to balance the statistics of the role-played character with the "skill" of FPS combat.
About your argument for going to the other extreme in terms of introducing turn based combat to MMORPGs (something that has always worked in CRPGs): turned based might be a bit too extreme, but how about investigating some way to integrate Real Time Strategy systems into MMORPG combat? I think Gods and Heroes may be on to something with its emphasis on squad combat (with the "squad" being NPCs controlled by the player and some of the player's gained abilities being focused purely on implementing squad tactics).
Anyone remember the Squad Leader profession in SWG pre-NGE? I remember on the forums there were plenty of great ideas being thrown about that would allow the Squad Leader to basically act as a RTS player in terms of directing the action of his fellow players. Very interesting stuff.