"win" doesnt necessarily mean downing that big raid boss or capturing a keep in PvP. Where i disagree slightly with Dave here is that its not the ability to brag thats the key, its the feeling of accomplishment.
I think I got Dave right. He talks about being good at games and winning and bragging and destruction. That's what he most likely likes himself as a gamer, but for many gamers that's far from how they play.
We all enjoy overcoming obstacles, I would certainly grant you that. Whether we like these obstacles to be easy or hard to overcome (i.e., where our frustration level lies) varies a lot, but still, that's what gaming is about. Still, defining everything in terms of "winning" is wrong at many levels, and completely ignores many aspects of what drives people forward.
People who care about winning don't need complex bragging mechanisms. MOBA and online FPS games are much much simpler than an MMORPG. They're where people who care about winning are. Apply that to an MMO, and the entire way towards the top becomes quite meaningless, something to get over with quickly to get to the real competition. Because that's what winning and bragging is about, it's about competition, and IMO what a good MMO is about is cooperative play, not competition.
I think that what drives most people in an MMORPG is discovery and progression. Be it story, exploration, getting new powers, finding new armor, or collecting (as in EQ2) it's about learning more about the game and owning more (and more "advanced") stuff within it. Discovery and progression is what in my eyes makes an MMORPG as opposed to MOBA or MMOFPS. A good MMORPG also adds creativity, which is expressed by clothing, housing and player created content.
Which is why to me Dave misses big time on what an MMORPG is like.
That's not to say that his advice is bad, certainly finding your core and sticking to it is important. It's just that if the core is defined as winning and bragging then to me it's missing what I feel an MMORPG is about.
Original Everquest had massive empty zones with nothing in them. Plains of Karana for example. Without any form of fast travel passing through these zones made you want to quit. That and you had two whole dungeons to get 50th level, solb & lguk. Anyone who played EQ at that time remembers how you had to ask to get on lists for groups.
Yes... every single spawn point would have a group sitting there. They would sit & kill mobs as they spawned. in that one room. Usually the entire dungeon would be camped. You would enter, and ask who was where and get on their lists for a group.
Anytime I see people complain about isntanced dungeons I laugh.
Then you'd go outside the dungeon and find guards to kill somewhere outside a city. I spent alot of my time levelling to 50 killing npc guards because there wasn't anything else to do.
hmm ... hmm ... I don't know what to make of the article. he has sound ideas (define your core gameplay and stick to it, play your game and try to have fun in it ...) and then he's totally off the wall (destruction focused, brag).
You lost me at "win". I won't want to play the games you make. If you create games for people who want to win and brag about it, then you'll get people who want to win and brag about it, and that's fine if that's what you want (and certainly the raiders and PvPers are the life of many an MMO).
If you ask me what my favourite game is, and I told you Planescape: Torment (I don't have a real top game, but that's one I liked a lot), is that because I was good at it (whatever that means), or is it because had good story, characters and interactions. Was City of Heroes my favourite MMORPG because I was good at it, or because it had neat stories and a wide variety of characters I could create?
MMORPG players aren't all out to win. Some want, you know, to experience the RPG part. Some want to explore a world. If I stayed with CoH and left EQ2 it was not because I was better at CoH, but because EQ2 had less story content. If I was more of an explorer, on the other hand, I might have preferred EQ2. And what I did like about EQ2 never amounted to winning or bragging.
It's possible that designing a game for those who like to win and brag can bring in more money, but I personally hope that few game designers take that advice to heart.
You can't be that dense can you?
The 'wins' he refers to aren't just winning at pve or pvp. Anything can be considered a win. Even completing a simple quest is a win for some people. From the sound of it, your wins would be story driven.
As for your experience with CoH vs EQ2 ... I have no earthly clue how you think CoH has more story. I finished their 'story' in under 2 weeks ...
You lost me at "win". I won't want to play the games you make. If you create games for people who want to win and brag about it, then you'll get people who want to win and brag about it, and that's fine if that's what you want (and certainly the raiders and PvPers are the life of many an MMO).
If you ask me what my favourite game is, and I told you Planescape: Torment (I don't have a real top game, but that's one I liked a lot), is that because I was good at it (whatever that means), or is it because had good story, characters and interactions. Was City of Heroes my favourite MMORPG because I was good at it, or because it had neat stories and a wide variety of characters I could create?
MMORPG players aren't all out to win. Some want, you know, to experience the RPG part. Some want to explore a world. If I stayed with CoH and left EQ2 it was not because I was better at CoH, but because EQ2 had less story content. If I was more of an explorer, on the other hand, I might have preferred EQ2. And what I did like about EQ2 never amounted to winning or bragging.
It's possible that designing a game for those who like to win and brag can bring in more money, but I personally hope that few game designers take that advice to heart.
I think you are being too literal or at least not taking the Kernel of what is being said.
Even though he addressed the "bragging" part look at it in the context of your taste and what is meaningful to you. "Being good" at a game can mean just about anything. The most direct way to be good is to be able to play it at a pace you are comfortable with and where you can be successful at things that are important to you.
That's "winning".
some hone in on attaining "things" and others hone in on experiences.
Another way that is "winning" is a game that gives you the entertainment you seek.
Look at second life. Though I"m sure there are people who have land where there is typical "winning' most of the game seems to be built around "building" and player interaction.
Anything in that game that supports player interaction allows players the content/experiences that they desire and that is a "win" as far as game play.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
"Being good" at a game can mean just about anything.
So either we take his words literally, or we take them to be meaningless. If they can mean anything, then what he said doesn't really do much to advance the understanding of what it takes to make a good game.
But I have no reason to believe it's anything but literal. Someone who phrases things in this particular way is someone who thinks in a particular way. It's very convoluted to say "I won at that book", "I won at that movie", which is what you suggest when saying that "winning" is equal to getting entertainment value.
I don't think that interpreting Dave's words more broadly does justice to his vision. He has a particular vision, which probably made him the right man for Planetside, and I just happen to think that this vision isn't the right one for an MMORPG.
Originally posted by Vorthanion Georgeson is the perfect example why developers can't get past raiding as the singular end game design. The "I Win" and "I'm Better Than You" crowd flock to that design paradigm and it's what makes the incredibly monotonous raid grind so worthwhile. Its very existence in game completely trivializes and diminishes other content and play styles. What gets my goat is that raiding is fairly niche gameplay. Grouping down to soloing is where the majority are at, yet they get the least amount of focus in most MMO's end game.
Yet the last game Georgeson was running before EQNext had probably the most endgame content for soloers. EQ2 certainly has a raid game, but its also a game that can be rewarding for just about anyone.
It took EQ2 years to begin offering a more level playing field for non-raiders and it's one game out of how many out there? Also, how much can you credit Georgeson for the non-raiding content in EQ2? Do you know for a fact that he requested or designed it or even had anything to do with it? It's pretty obvious to me that the majority of developers think like he does.
PS Edit:.. For those that defend Dave saying we misunderstood what he was saying.. Here is his own words.. >> "And that should come as no surprise, because every gamer…100% of us…likes to brag. Don’t get defensive or PC on me. You know you do. We all do."........ There is NO spin to those words.. I don't brag, I hate braggers and I do not play games to WIN either.. If you keep designing games believing that everyone "100% of us" gamers like what he likes, then we are ALL doomed.. LOL
Nicely summed up and I agree. However, if "wearing the most hideous hat in the game" = "bragging" then I might fall in to his 100%. In-game awful hats always help me find my character easier. I never really thought of it as bragging though.
I had you pinned for a guy who wanted to make games, looks like you want to create MMLOLs instead.
Circus content hahahahaha. How about RPG and PVE aspects of a virtual world? I don't get it - you have to win in real life to get anywhere why does it have to be in the virtual as well?
I'm not into "winning" nor bragging (the friends who play too at my age group of 25+ .. ++ erm) share stories of experience, frustration, fun. Nothing about winning but laughter, hair pulling, moments of seen beauty. I know that the Landmark thing has unfortunately become all about posing and bragging - meaning he ones who are really good get a lot of attention and the people who ask for column tools and more intuitive modification of voxel structures (pinching a corner? pulling or pushing it?) are shot down saying "not necessary" etc.
My favorite games are UO - I played hardcore RP shards and sucked in terms of games mechanic/achievement, but oh the flexibility and options for gameplay! Or A Tale in the Desert or Salem - I suck at the grind and detailled knowledge needed for combat for the latter, but the FREEDOM in these games make them my favorites. I love Don't Starve Together despite constantly dying. I'm very fond of Neo Scavenger despite often not even surviving more than 30 minutes ...
Basically I believe George got stuck with the Achiever type of players in his article and ignores a large proportion and variety who exist all the same ...
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ... Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2 Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
I had you pinned for a guy who wanted to make games, looks like you want to create MMLOLs instead.
Circus content hahahahaha. How about RPG and PVE aspects of a virtual world? I don't get it - you have to win in real life to get anywhere why does it have to be in the virtual as well?
Indeed!
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ... Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2 Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
You lost me at "win". I won't want to play the games you make. If you create games for people who want to win and brag about it, then you'll get people who want to win and brag about it, and that's fine if that's what you want (and certainly the raiders and PvPers are the life of many an MMO).
If you ask me what my favourite game is, and I told you Planescape: Torment (I don't have a real top game, but that's one I liked a lot), is that because I was good at it (whatever that means), or is it because had good story, characters and interactions. Was City of Heroes my favourite MMORPG because I was good at it, or because it had neat stories and a wide variety of characters I could create?
MMORPG players aren't all out to win. Some want, you know, to experience the RPG part. Some want to explore a world. If I stayed with CoH and left EQ2 it was not because I was better at CoH, but because EQ2 had less story content. If I was more of an explorer, on the other hand, I might have preferred EQ2. And what I did like about EQ2 never amounted to winning or bragging.
It's possible that designing a game for those who like to win and brag can bring in more money, but I personally hope that few game designers take that advice to heart.
Comments
This is my favorite part:
"Your biggest goal should be to create situations where the players happily and voluntarily rely on one another."
I think I got Dave right. He talks about being good at games and winning and bragging and destruction. That's what he most likely likes himself as a gamer, but for many gamers that's far from how they play.
We all enjoy overcoming obstacles, I would certainly grant you that. Whether we like these obstacles to be easy or hard to overcome (i.e., where our frustration level lies) varies a lot, but still, that's what gaming is about. Still, defining everything in terms of "winning" is wrong at many levels, and completely ignores many aspects of what drives people forward.
People who care about winning don't need complex bragging mechanisms. MOBA and online FPS games are much much simpler than an MMORPG. They're where people who care about winning are. Apply that to an MMO, and the entire way towards the top becomes quite meaningless, something to get over with quickly to get to the real competition. Because that's what winning and bragging is about, it's about competition, and IMO what a good MMO is about is cooperative play, not competition.
I think that what drives most people in an MMORPG is discovery and progression. Be it story, exploration, getting new powers, finding new armor, or collecting (as in EQ2) it's about learning more about the game and owning more (and more "advanced") stuff within it. Discovery and progression is what in my eyes makes an MMORPG as opposed to MOBA or MMOFPS. A good MMORPG also adds creativity, which is expressed by clothing, housing and player created content.
Which is why to me Dave misses big time on what an MMORPG is like.
That's not to say that his advice is bad, certainly finding your core and sticking to it is important. It's just that if the core is defined as winning and bragging then to me it's missing what I feel an MMORPG is about.
Original Everquest had massive empty zones with nothing in them. Plains of Karana for example. Without any form of fast travel passing through these zones made you want to quit. That and you had two whole dungeons to get 50th level, solb & lguk. Anyone who played EQ at that time remembers how you had to ask to get on lists for groups.
Yes... every single spawn point would have a group sitting there. They would sit & kill mobs as they spawned. in that one room. Usually the entire dungeon would be camped. You would enter, and ask who was where and get on their lists for a group.
Anytime I see people complain about isntanced dungeons I laugh.
Then you'd go outside the dungeon and find guards to kill somewhere outside a city. I spent alot of my time levelling to 50 killing npc guards because there wasn't anything else to do.
hmm ... hmm ... I don't know what to make of the article. he has sound ideas (define your core gameplay and stick to it, play your game and try to have fun in it ...) and then he's totally off the wall (destruction focused, brag).
You can't be that dense can you?
The 'wins' he refers to aren't just winning at pve or pvp. Anything can be considered a win. Even completing a simple quest is a win for some people. From the sound of it, your wins would be story driven.
As for your experience with CoH vs EQ2 ... I have no earthly clue how you think CoH has more story. I finished their 'story' in under 2 weeks ...
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think you are being too literal or at least not taking the Kernel of what is being said.
That's "winning".
some hone in on attaining "things" and others hone in on experiences.
Another way that is "winning" is a game that gives you the entertainment you seek.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
So either we take his words literally, or we take them to be meaningless. If they can mean anything, then what he said doesn't really do much to advance the understanding of what it takes to make a good game.
But I have no reason to believe it's anything but literal. Someone who phrases things in this particular way is someone who thinks in a particular way. It's very convoluted to say "I won at that book", "I won at that movie", which is what you suggest when saying that "winning" is equal to getting entertainment value.
I don't think that interpreting Dave's words more broadly does justice to his vision. He has a particular vision, which probably made him the right man for Planetside, and I just happen to think that this vision isn't the right one for an MMORPG.
It took EQ2 years to begin offering a more level playing field for non-raiders and it's one game out of how many out there? Also, how much can you credit Georgeson for the non-raiding content in EQ2? Do you know for a fact that he requested or designed it or even had anything to do with it? It's pretty obvious to me that the majority of developers think like he does.
Nicely summed up and I agree. However, if "wearing the most hideous hat in the game" = "bragging" then I might fall in to his 100%. In-game awful hats always help me find my character easier. I never really thought of it as bragging though.
I had you pinned for a guy who wanted to make games, looks like you want to create MMLOLs instead.
Circus content hahahahaha. How about RPG and PVE aspects of a virtual world? I don't get it - you have to win in real life to get anywhere why does it have to be in the virtual as well?
I'm not into "winning" nor bragging (the friends who play too at my age group of 25+ .. ++ erm) share stories of experience, frustration, fun. Nothing about winning but laughter, hair pulling, moments of seen beauty. I know that the Landmark thing has unfortunately become all about posing and bragging - meaning he ones who are really good get a lot of attention and the people who ask for column tools and more intuitive modification of voxel structures (pinching a corner? pulling or pushing it?) are shot down saying "not necessary" etc.
My favorite games are UO - I played hardcore RP shards and sucked in terms of games mechanic/achievement, but oh the flexibility and options for gameplay! Or A Tale in the Desert or Salem - I suck at the grind and detailled knowledge needed for combat for the latter, but the FREEDOM in these games make them my favorites. I love Don't Starve Together despite constantly dying. I'm very fond of Neo Scavenger despite often not even surviving more than 30 minutes ...
Basically I believe George got stuck with the Achiever type of players in his article and ignores a large proportion and variety who exist all the same ...
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ...
Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse
Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2
Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
Indeed!
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ...
Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse
Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2
Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
I like your thinking.