The Importance of Lore, depth, and Immersion in an MMORPG?

Valthar

I have been playing MMO's since the start of Everquest, have tried PvE & PvP servers in multiple games throughout the years, and have always wondered why I haven't gotten the same feeling with them that I did in EQ.

EQ had PLENTY of problems, but for some reason I was drawn into the world and became a part of the community. Something I have not been able to really do in any MMO since. This had me wondering about the importance of the community on a game, and the world they are building this community on.

I would like to know what MMORPG.coms grouping of players thinks of the importance of Community, depth, and Lore on a game be it PvP or PvE. The players a game attracts, and how those players and the games developers can build a community from the ground up. Detailed guidelines perhaps companies should strive for to basically grab a hold of what seems to be the MMORPG players addiction.

JB47394

I just replied to another EverQuest thread about this.

1. EverQuest was something completely unfounded.  Nobody had ever seen a 3D virtual environment, let alone one with thousands of other players in it.  We were willing to put quite a bit of effort into it, and we were also very naive about the whole thing.

2. EverQuest had a community because the game was so lethal.  The level grind ensured that the player base didn't diverge, and deaths were so heavily penalized that players really felt for one another when a death took place.  Most everyone either helped or had help on corpse runs.  Groups were mandatory.  People who solo'd to level 50 were the stuff of whispered legends.

If a game wants to develop a community, it needs to have the same people interacting on a regular basis.

EverQuest did it with slow progression, required grouping and limited choices of hunting grounds.  The game inspired stability of interaction - the same people in the same places.  World of Warcraft eliminated the grind and the community in one move.  There is little stability in the community.  Characters race through the levels and the hunting areas until they reach raiding levels.  Raiding is stable, but insular.  Once a player is part of a certain raiding group, that is generally the group that they raid with.  Because of instancing, there is no sense of multiple raids happening side-by-side, with one raid group helping another if they get into trouble.  Blizzard carefully structured the content for easy access by individuals without retaining any organic sense of community.

This is the problem that has led me to believing that removing levels and introducing limited hunting grounds is the way to go.  Everyone is the same level, so everyone is able to interact.  The hunting grounds are the game's defined places for combat, and everyone knows where they are and what needs to be done.  So they can cooperate or ignore each other as they see fit.  Most importantly, players are located in the same few places and have the opportunity to interact.

EverQuest used levels to make sure that players didn't spend the entire game at one or two hunting grounds.  Fight for perhaps five levels at a hunting ground, then move to the next.  I'd set things up so that when the players have cleared a hunting ground, the game simply opens new ones up at a little distance away.  Clear the castle defending the pass, then enter the pass.  Oops the pass is also defended.  Fight through the pass.  Pass is cleared.  Oops, there's a forest beyond that is filled with monsters.  Time to clear it.  Make completing any piece of content last a week or two and you've got enough time to enjoy the content without being stuck in it.

The players know the progression, and all player characters are a constant and stable part of that progression.  That means that players are interacting and forming a community over time.  They're getting to know each other.

Even if a player drops out of the game for a month or two, when they come back they still have the same character at the same level as everyone else, and they will just jump ahead to wherever the fight has progressed to.  They'll see the same people that were around when they left (assuming they're still playing).

Czzarre

I think they are all very important. However, understand that todays crop of MMO players are very different from those of EQ1. Back in the EQ1 hay day, we were trailblazers. The internet was young and we were some of the first to discover the potential of online entertainment. There was real sense of unknown and discovery.

These days, we have lost some sense of unknown and exploration. Many games have been constructed in lego like fassion ...building upon and mimicing another games success. We can play a new game and from the start recognize elements we are familiar with. That didnt happen in EQ1/UO ...everything was alien.

EQ1/UO etc were very raw games at release . Graphics were cuboidal. The focus and development of a rich enviornment were ways to overcome the technologic limitations. I believe as graphics improved, the storyline and immersion took a hit.

 

Josher

First love, virgin syndrome;)  You're not alone.  Nothing about EQ was BETTER designed than todays MMOs.  Gameplay was worse.  Control was worse.  UI was worse.  Graphics were worse.  Bugs were worse.  Animation was worse.   Grinding was worse.   Classes were extremely limited with few abilites or variation.  Penalties were horrible.   It was slow, eccessively time consuming, tedious and trudging.  Finding info about anything was hard to come by.  There was onyl one way to play and that was find a camp and spawn camp it for weeks with a group.  Very little choice as to how to progress.  No THOTbot or detailed FAQ or Wiki pages defining every detail.   You just dealt with less, because there was nothing else or very little to compare it to.  It was so new and different and THAT's immersive.  Immersion came from the utter newness of it all.  The game didn't have anything specific that made it MORE immersive than anything else now, except that it was your FIRST MMO and you'll always remember your first in a different way than everything afterwards.  

The community might've appread better but you need only look at the demographics back then.  If you played EQ, the odds are you wre playing D&D.  The game didn't make the players better.  The players were just all computer geeks and obviously computer geeks get along with eachother better when normal people aren't getting in the way=)  That makes the community mesh better, but please don't give the designers credit for that.  FOrced grouping also had little to do with it, considering players clamored for more soloing options over the years.  The developers just didn't have to adapt until they were forced to.

declaredemer

Immersion is the most-important feature of an MMORPG.

 

 

 

I just wrote somewhere about the importance of 3 Cs in early MMORPGs:

• Community
• Challenge
• Creativity

 

All required, however, a platform that was engrossing.  It was not simply graphics, but diversity, depth, and distinctness.  You could be in the same game but felt in a completely different part of the world.

 

I used to play MMORPGs because of that world-feel and unique customization --in a game of thousands of players, my character is unique in appearance, story, features, and so forth-- that is totally lacking today.

 

 

If anything, the sooner the developers focus on Community, Challenge, and Creativity within a context of world immersion and customization the better we will be.

 

JB47394

Originally posted by Josher


Nothing about EQ was BETTER designed than todays MMOs.

If you say so.  I'll continue to assert that adversity breeds camaraderie, and that has been true since the dawn of time.  I don't believe that adversity is the only way to develop that sense of community, but EverQuest did it that way and it worked.  I doubt it will ever work again because the price for developing a sense of community that way is too high.  But the technique it worked at that time.

At no time should anyone believe that my memories of EverQuest are entirely positive.  I'd happily wear a shirt that reads "I Survived EverQuest".  It was a game experience that has many remarkable memories, but I wouldn't want to repeat the overall experience.

What I want from a game now is a sense of something new.  Not new graphics, but new experiences.  New ways of interacting with other players and with the environment itself.  Part of the remarkable EverQuest experience was the newness of it all.  I'd very much like to revisit that.

Chamberlain

Is this an opinion thread, or a "what do you need to be a successful MMO" thread?

If it's an opinion thread, then I'll offer this.  Lore, Depth, and Immersion are the most important, and the only important parts of any MMO.  Quality PvE should always be the number one focus.  PvP has no place in MMOs.  PvP is for Shooters, Fighting games, and strategy.  All 3 of which I play (actually consider VS Fighters my main forte, over RPGs, but then again, VS Combat in those games is actually honorable)  Once again, this is the OPINION side of my answer.  An MMO is played to escape the real world.  PvP promotes hatred, malice, bullying, intolerance, and generally creates a horrible game community, because everybody wants only one thing... to keep the other players from playing as much as possible.

 

Now, the other side of the thread.  There will never be a super succesful MMO that doesn't have a huge PvP side to it.  We live in a world where people are jealous, hateful, and in a total state of despair.  They're not here to play something beautiful and fun, and enjoy the company of others.  Without a PvP system, you'd lose that entire demographic, and since that's like... 90% of gamers, well then you'll end up.. like Vanguard.  An MMO needs PvP absolutely to even crack the profitability mark I would imagine.  Lore, Depth and Immersion in a succesful game is pretty much a throwaway.  As mentioned previously, the bulk of your customer base is not playing to ease their minds, they're playing to take out their anger from having to work the drive-thru that day.