General: Casual Play: World vs. Game...

Stradden · February 2007

Steve Wison returns with his Weekly Casual Play column. This week, Steve weighs in on the world vs. game debate with a look back at his experiences in the original Ultima Online.

From a casual play perspective it's hard to imagine a worse game than what Ultima Online delivered a decade ago. It's also surprising that from that terrible genesis we have some of the great games we do today, along with the promise of more to come. Even games touted as being by and for the hardcore player, like Vanguard, have moved far away from the horrible experience that was UO.

Read the whole column here.

eburn · February 2007

Yeah, let's celebrate MMO's current blandness by front page listing one of the longest whines I've ever seen.

Tip for MMORPG.com, get actual writers to contribute to the site. Picking up long winded cry babies from the forums just doesn't seem up to par with the actual news posted.

SethVegeta · February 2007

agreed, making a "news" story of bitching about a 10 year old game that has come 360 and is still thriving, without even comparing it to today's games makes no sense. It was a waste of time about nothing that relates to today IMO

Vinadil · February 2007

Heh, well if the thoughts shared by the OP were in anyway different from the mainstream you might be able to make a stronger point... but the fact is there were MANY people sharing that very same conclusion days after UO was released. I remember holding the box for UO in one hand and EQ in the other and asking the guy at Babbage's (now EB or whatever they are) "Which one do you suggest?" He pointed to EQ and and reccommended it unless I liked being constantly camped and killed as entertainment.

The fact is that MOST people do not enjoy that kind of entertainment. That is why most people do not play serious sports or partake in high-risk poker/gambling. It is just not how they have fun. But, for those of us who grew up on EQ and realized it was a dish that could NEVER satisfy... we discovered something that had been there the whole time; we enjoy competition.

I wonder how the experience of the OP would have changed had he been a part of a guild of like-minded individuals entering the game together. I know some of these articles have mentioned guilds... but really, if you have been playing MMOs since the beginning of time (UO) and still have not managed to find a group of people you can play with... well, then that is fine for you. But, there are some games that just make a LOT more sense when you look at them from a "team" basis.

You remind me of the guy who shows up to the basketball court by himself and expects to have a great time playing pick-up games against pre-formed teams who are waiting in line. Your odds are not very good. Even bringing your own team of complete noobs who get beat is more fun than being the odd-man out every game... even if you win them all.

Perhaps a Casual Corner on "How to find a guild and increase your enjoyment of MMOs" would be a good idea? I think it is easy to see that casual gamers rule the market... but they are missing out on a HUGE amount of fun and experience if they are casual SOLO gamers.

JK-Kanosi · February 2007

I also believe that world simulation and casual play can go hand in hand. UO may have been too harsh, but the old SWG wasn't and it was fun. I don't think the writers crime was him complaining about UO, but in assuming that all casual players are the same and view things the same as him.

I am casual compared to the typical gamer and I prefer a simulation like SWG over WoW. I mean seriously. I love an Epic journey just like the next guy. But what is wrong with getting together with some virtual friends to build a city, run a government, and live that Epic journey at the same time. That was what SWG was about to me. I could be apart of a player ran government and their city, and also set out to save the galaxy from the crummy Imperials/Rebels (whoever was the opposing factions for you). I knew the over all goal was to take over the galaxy. I didn't need a bunch of quests telling me how to do it or which steps to take. More power and people equals success. So it was apparent that I needed to increase my skills as a fighter and get involved socially with other people in order to achieve that goal.

I can achieve what the writer considers casual play, in a PC RPG game like Oblivion. Who needs a community for that type of game experience? Honestly, who feels like a hero defeating a Bad guy with 25-40 people? Don't all the best epic stories that involve killing a single bad guy boss involve usually one person to at most a small party of adventurers? So if I want to feel like a hero fighting with a bunch of other people, wouldn't I want the task to make sense taking a bunch of people....such as ridding the galaxy of the empire?

Hersaint · February 2007

Link is busted to your article.

ironore · February 2007

Strange. I played UO from the beginning for quite a while on a very casual basis and I have never found an MMO to equal it. Perhaps it was because I approached the game in a completely different way than what has unfortunately become the 'mainstream' mindset (perhaps because of early decisions to eliminate problems with the genre instead of attempting to solve them).

My siblings and I began the game after much anticipation. We had practically created our characters by looking up information online before we ever got a hold of the game. And then we entered that WORLD and found a whole new experience. I don't think in all my time I ever got a character over level 4 (and that was usually by accident). I simply wanted to experience the world and it was one of the few that ever felt real, precisely because of the danger that existed. I would try and travel from point A to point B without getting killed. I would follow the road as much as possible without being right on it because (in the early days before rampant teleportation) it was a dangerous place to be. In the end I was very disappointed by the static state of the world but I never found another game that had any substance to it outside of the level treadmill.

I think the casual market might find a whole lot more participants if we could one day have a game where they could log in and not be forced to do ANYTHING other than experience the world in its current state.

methulah · February 2007

Originally posted by ironore

Strange. I played UO from the beginning for quite a while on a very casual basis and I have never found an MMO to equal it. Perhaps it was because I approached the game in a completely different way than what has unfortunately become the 'mainstream' mindset (perhaps because of early decisions to eliminate problems with the genre instead of attempting to solve them).

My siblings and I began the game after much anticipation. We had practically created our characters by looking up information online before we ever got a hold of the game. And then we entered that WORLD and found a whole new experience. I don't think in all my time I ever got a character over level 4 (and that was usually by accident). I simply wanted to experience the world and it was one of the few that ever felt real, precisely because of the danger that existed. I would try and travel from point A to point B without getting killed. I would follow the road as much as possible without being right on it because (in the early days before rampant teleportation) it was a dangerous place to be. In the end I was very disappointed by the static state of the world but I never found another game that had any substance to it outside of the level treadmill.

I think the casual market might find a whole lot more participants if we could one day have a game where they could log in and not be forced to do ANYTHING other than experience the world in its current state.

Amen, I mean, I never played Ultima Online, but from all I've heard about it, you hit the nail right on the head. Back when I was playing Everquest some of my friends were amazed at what I was going through in a "game" and that I was paying for that kind of non-entertainment.

However, Brad McQuaid once said: "Maybe hardcore players enjoy MMORPGs more." Raph Koster would argue that MMORPGs are "much more than just a game." Honestly, if there is a game out there that makes me, a mentally stable young man, pay to spend hours upon hours doing something only to have it taken away due to something I can't control, maybe LAG or some muppet training, then that game's going to be special, because it's going to be a game AND a world.

Everquest was special, and it sounds like Ultima Online was, too.

ShiloFields · February 2007

I totally agree with JK-Kanosi. I much prefer a more simulation like game than a mere game, particulary when dealing with an well loved ip, like Star Wars. Not only do you lose the fun and completexity of a simulation, when you convert it to a mere game, you actually deviate from the story. In that regard, to stay true a story, you have to make the game a simulation.

A classic example in SWG was the use of faction armour. Originally, you couldn't wear it unless were open to attack by players of the enemy faction. This makes sense in a simulation, but perhaps not in a mere game. The thing is it HAS to be that way to stay true to the story, otherwise, you will have rebel and imperial players wearing the external signs of their faction, interacting peacefully with the enemy.

Interesting, perhaps, open PK games like Ultima Online tend to create peope in favor of mere games and the old SWG tended to create people that are fans of simulations.

jakin · February 2007

It's really highly unfortunate that MMO companies seem to have taken the same view as the writer - that a game world cannot possibly be fun unless they provide hundreds of mundane tasks couched in a dribble of half-baked storyline. Honestly, I think computer based RPGs have done more harm to the concept of role-playing than anything else possibly could have.

Content is an expression of "things players can do with their time" not "things the games provide the players to do". Subtle distinction but important nonetheless.

Sure there is a good point there on the creation of open PvP games - UO certainly suffered as a result of that game design choice, but to imply that a world simulation as a whole is a flawed concept is pretty wide of the mark IMO.

The current state of the industry is beyond sad. The vast majority are varying degrees of success on the same theme as EQ. Even the so-called "third generation" of Vanguard, LOTRO, etc look to be shaping up the same way - albeit with better graphics than what came before.

My only hope is that games in coming years will completely exhaust the market's desire for level-grinding, item-centric, theme-park ride MMOs and that we'll see the next true successor to UO-style gameplay come online. SWG was that heir-apparent, but was re-imagined by people expressing the same philosophy as the author of this article. Hopefully at some point in the future another game will be made with developers of stronger conviction that a market exists for the world-sim, sandbox, open-concept MMO.

jrlongg · February 2007

I played UO for about 4 years starting at it's beginning. I loved it and I've never found a game that has excited me the way it did. It lost everything that was great about it when they changed it so that it wasn't as harsh a world. That harshness was what made it exciting. Just walking to town was an adventure.

Robbgobb · February 2007

First time that I have really hated an article. This one was true trash in my eyes. And that is without taking into account the errors the writer made. I would think at least a spell check would be run on these articles.

UO was my first MMO. First time for freedom and all. I had a wonderful time with it. Even with PK being in the game it was still fun. Quests? What quests? I did not think about quests until after EQ had been out. Was the writer playing something else that wasn't a MUD that had such things? I did not know about them but had lots of time to have fun in the world of Ultima. UO might not be the best but sure is one that I will never look down on as a horrible game. EQ sure did change that when it came out but that was later. Picking up an old game and a new game then most times the new is going to be suggested though not always.

This is the first article that truly makes me wonder why I read all of them. I knew there were plenty that I did not care for so might not finish reading or just browse it but this one was just wrong. I always played on a friends computer till E&B came out so casual time is all I had and reading this just (and being truthful) turned my stomach at such bias view. This seemed to be someone wanting to stand on their soapbox and tell the world that the game was too hard for them. Sounds like "Mommy, will you hold my hand and walk with me to the first day of high school?" because of the need to be led by the nose.

andykimbroug · February 2007

The link is busted to the article as it seems to me. can someone point me to where it is so I can read it.

EDIT:

It is here http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cfm/loadFeature/1122

eburn · February 2007

I think there may be a tad bit of irony behind the post. Maybe it was meant to get this type of discussion started ya know?

Quite frankly. There's nothing out there that's been as unique as old school Ultima was. Considering it was one of the FIRST MMOs. What does that say about the current line up of games?

Vanguard is boring. WoW is boring. EQ II sucks. DAoC has a lil' more innovation over EQ. The Korean games offer up some PvP at the cost of content. The high profile liscensed games offer up some content at the lack of everything else.

I dunno. I want another free for all world that has content and a nice 'let me choose' interface again.

There's no such thing as a fair pvp system in anyone's eyes. It's either too strict or too soft.

There's no such thing as a MMO rpg made without grinding. You grind. You may do a quest, but you're grinding for the hell of it.

I dunno, I like to play MMOs because of being in the game with other players but I'm starting to wonder if there's even a company out there that even cares what their MMO turns out to be?

They're all great ideas on paper but I mean look at what's came about? People either love it or hate it and generally either for all the wrong reasons.

Fobok · February 2007

I both agree and disagree with the author in this article. On one hand, games in the EQ style (like WoW), in my opinion, need quests to keep things going. Otherwise it's grinding for the sole purpose of levelling up.

However, there's been only one game that I've played that could hold my attention constantly: Star Wars Galaxies. As a casual gamer, I loved it because it was a virtual world. I could just login and have fun, not work to find groups or go to a specific hunting spot for a quest or anything of the kind. I spent more time in that game sitting in my city talking with my neighbours than I've even played most other games. And then there's exploring, I absolutely love exploring.

To me, Star Wars Galaxies felt like a world. I could do what I wanted. I could explore, I could craft, I could dance or play music if I wanted, or I could hunt when I felt like it. Then, the Combat Update came, and made the combat more fun but sacrificed some of the advantages of the noncombat professions. Oh, I thought, they'll give us a revamp down the road, so I stayed. Now we have the NGE, player cities are abandoned, empty houses litter the landscape, and it feels like a post-apocalyptic world rather than the living world it used to be. I've been desperately searching for that feeling since then. To me, a virtual world is far more important, and I'd be fine without quests even if I could settle down, open up a store, and sell my wares while chatting with neighbours and occasionally taking part in city politics, without having to take part in a grind to become rich first.

leipuri · February 2007

From the moment the player was dumped in the starting city, there was no indication of where they should go or what should do.

This was one of things a lot enjoyed. Instead having bunch of quests where dev have drawn red line that you are supposed to follow, you are left to figure what to do next yourself, which often followed that players packed together and figured what to do next together (most current mmorpgs favor that players solo quests that they are supposed to solo). I remember how fun it was finding and learning something new, feeling "oh when I use axe on tree i get logs, get some feather from birds and I could make arrows". Too bad it didn't last so long once you later figured how you are supposed to work toward your 7xgm even if it took ridiculously long. I really wish they would had made some hybrid of skill system where you could have 1 or 2 crafting skills on top of your other skills.

gpett · February 2007

Many people have fundamentaly different reasons for playing computer games. Some want a vacation, some want to be entertained, some want an escape, some want to see exciting pretty things, and some want to compete.

It sucks that games these days try to cater to everyone. We get an end product that nobody is happy with. These mainstream games try to incorporate all aspects of games and usually fail to marry them in a cohesive way. I wish, game developers would narow thier focus in the games they make. Have clearer goals and more bold gameplay decisions to make your game the best at a certain geanra or style.

I cannot argue with the writer of the orriginal post because it was his oppinion. The writer of the orriginal post obviously looks for differnt things in a game than I do. I will however condemn the writer of the orriginal post for calling a game "bad" that happens to be one of the orriginal and most sucesscull MMOs to date.

We can agree to disagree what we think is good or bad in a game. Then lets go make two seperate games so we can both be happy. The industry is packed with these mainstream games that make nobody happy because they try to cater to everyone.

Thony · February 2007

Originally posted by Fobok

And then there's exploring, I absolutely love exploring.

To me, Star Wars Galaxies felt like a world. I could do what I wanted. I could explore, I could craft, I could dance or play music if I wanted, or I could hunt when I felt like it. Then, the Combat Update came, and made the combat more fun but sacrificed some of the advantages of the noncombat professions. Oh, I thought, they'll give us a revamp down the road, so I stayed. Now we have the NGE, player cities are abandoned, empty houses litter the landscape, and it feels like a post-apocalyptic world rather than the living world it used to be. I've been desperately searching for that feeling since then. To me, a virtual world is far more important, and I'd be fine without quests even if I could settle down, open up a store, and sell my wares while chatting with neighbours and occasionally taking part in city politics, without having to take part in a grind to become rich first.

Same feeling here, i play for the adventure, sort of life the live of the character, i'm not xp driven, its cool that i progress, but its definitly not my main factor to play mmorpg's, its that sort of world feeling it (should) gives what i like about hem.

And S.Wilson whats this about :. All of the old RPGs gave the player an immediate goal which, at the very least, start them on their path./ This concept alone was antithical to what every other game in the world did Are you against change? does everything needs to be the same? i can't debat about UO as i have not played it but i do know that at the time their only a few games you could play online in way's like UO. The only way i can read this articel is because you are comparing today's games with a game release'd in '97.

For me a casual gamer is one that has little time to play a game but when play's he still likes different aspects of a game, may it be crafting, combat ect ect, Just making the best out of his time ingame.

Now from what i have seen from mmorpg.com a casual player is someone that rather be a slave to the game instead the other way around, if something is timeconsuming then it's hardcore??........i can only think of one thing "narrowmindedness", always in the need for xp, "hurry my friend is already lvl XX i need to catch up", "mann this takes forever" and tommorow the world is gonna blow up so must do it right now , "well i don't have as much time as you have" kind of aditude .

So i'm kinda saying that i see mmorpg.com explains that casual gamers should play a game like work.

When people start to play a mmorpg as a mmorpg then then you will no longer hear words likeGrind/Hardcore/Casual or any of those things i just said in orange but they wil just enjoy themselfs with the mmorpg

Ryowulf · February 2007

While I think a game deserves mroe than just two days to decide if it is good or bad, I do otherwise agree with many things said in the article. In fact his first few lines, were the very things I would have said about SWG. I picked it up in the last days of the first combat system. I felt like I had been dropped in the middle of newwhere and abandon. It was a pain not having any clue what the heck you were suppose to do. If it wasn't for space combat I don't I would have lasted past the first month. I did end up joining a guild, and that made it better, but not because the game got better. Getting a doc buff and going into the wild to stand autoattacking a nest again and agian wasn't fun.

Playing WoW I had a good time up until 60 anyway and while combat wasn't much better the game as a whole was much more enjoyable.

ungcc · February 2007

What a terrible article.

The funny part is the author is whining about UO not being a casual game, but then references that EQ is, by saying: "But then EverQuest eventually came along and showed that with a little game thrown in even playing a virtual rat catcher could be fun". As a casual player myself, I found EQ to be the worst game I have played in terms of casual gaming!

Terrible, terrible article.

dalevi1 · February 2007

I see nothing wrong with this article. It seems a bit dated considering the game of choice, but it begs inference into other games. e writer invokes everquest as opposed to UO, which at the time meant a great difference. it seems to me he is making inferences to today's games, say Vanguard vs. WoW. What this article seems to be saying to me is that current designer's should attempt to educate their player base before sending them out into a warzone. Games that are doing this well after a bit of development seem to be ryzom, Lineage 2, and of course WoW. There are others out there for sure, but he is saying "don't dump me and run." I am sorry he was ganged at login in UO, but the medium was new at that point. Modern MMO's seem to be doing better, even the most unforgiving of them...

DemonOvrlord · February 2007

It's past time someone stepped up and declared UO for what it was - a pathetic excuse of game design that doomed the MMORPG genre to an entire DECADE of being nothing more than a niche market that would only appeal to hardcore masochists.

Originally posted by Vinadil

but the fact is there were MANY people sharing that very same conclusion days after UO was released. I remember holding the box for UO in one hand and EQ in the other and asking the guy at Babbage's (now EB or whatever they are) "Which one do you suggest?" He pointed to EQ and and reccommended it unless I liked being constantly camped and killed as entertainment.

And this view was shared by the MAJORITY of PC gamers out there for YEARS. A successful computer game measured its sales numbers in the millions. For some reason hardcore MMORPG players thought their pathetic market share was something worth noticing. EQ and UO were nothing more than amusing jokes in terms of sales and the computer industry treated MMORPGs just like they deserverd to be treated, amusing jokes not really worth any attention.

Now we're finally evolving away from that and here are all these people proclaiming how great UO and the 1st gen MMORPGs were. If they were so great where were the gamers? Where were the numbers that made TRULY successful PC games like Diablo and Civilization?

They weren't there because EQ and UO could never have attracted those type of numbers. Because compared to titles like Diablo and Civilization and all the other genres, those first generation MMORPGS were too busy trying to be simulators and ended up being lousy games.

And now that the industry is learning from their mistake, there are hardcores telling them go back and bring back the same screwed-up mechanics that stagnated the genre for a decade? Fortunately few modern companires are stupid enough to listen and those that do will fail just like their predecessors.

vajuras · February 2007

I dont care for this article much at all. I have not played UO but from what I have read in the article that sounds like my ideal sort of game. These WoW / Vanguard MMOs just dont make much logiocal sense to me. I'm sitting there fighting a mob and a few seconds later a mob spawns right uptop of me I dont think thats realistic, believeable, or fun. I'd like to play an MMO thats player driven that allows me to make an impact. I'd like to be able to help cull some dangerous animal population and like to see my efforts COUNT. I am not down for fighting some hard fight only to see the mobs respawn a few seconds later like nothing happened.

Now, I am NOT down for senseless ganking/griefing but I do like the idea of being able to take loot. That would give pvp a lot more point in an MMO. it should probably cost aa guild money to attack a town just like it costs the defenders a lot to defend.

I want an MMO where I can make an impact. these quest driven MMOs can be fun but they are nothing all that special really. they are static fake worlds where I dont make an impact and I dont count. In WoW I can kill a dangerous mob only to see it respawn a few seconds later. I can do a quests and then feel proud til I see 10 other people turn in that quest and get the exact same speech. would love to see more dynamic and simulation. dont knock original ideas all because you are happy with your static, fake stories / quests that my lil 9yr old daughter can write

gpett · February 2007

Originally posted by DemonOvrlord

It's past time someone stepped up and declared UO for what it was - a pathetic excuse of game design that doomed the MMORPG genre to an entire DECADE of being nothing more than a niche market that would only appeal to hardcore masochists.

Originally posted by Vinadil
but the fact is there were MANY people sharing that very same conclusion days after UO was released. I remember holding the box for UO in one hand and EQ in the other and asking the guy at Babbage's (now EB or whatever they are) "Which one do you suggest?" He pointed to EQ and and reccommended it unless I liked being constantly camped and killed as entertainment.

And this view was shared by the MAJORITY of PC gamers out there for YEARS. A successful computer game measured its sales numbers in the millions. For some reason hardcore MMORPG players thought their pathetic market share was something worth noticing. EQ and UO were nothing more than amusing jokes in terms of sales and the computer industry treated MMORPGs just like they deserverd to be treated, amusing jokes not really worth any attention.

Now we're finally evolving away from that and here are all these people proclaiming how great UO and the 1st gen MMORPGs were. If they were so great where were the gamers? Where were the numbers that made TRULY successful PC games like Diablo and Civilization?

They weren't there because EQ and UO could never have attracted those type of numbers. Because compared to titles like Diablo and Civilization and all the other genres, those first generation MMORPGS were too busy trying to be simulators and ended up being lousy games.

And now that the industry is learning from their mistake, there are hardcores telling them go back and bring back the same screwed-up mechanics that stagnated the genre for a decade? Fortunately few modern companires are stupid enough to listen and those that do will fail just like their predecessors.

Doomed the game market for a decade? I think PC gamers in the 90s were very happy with thier games. Companies like id software and Blizzard were at the forefront of quality games with the "when it is done" attitude. I played EQ before any expansions. I thought Verant did an excellent job. Notice I said Verant instead of SOE? You seem to forget that when UO and EQ came out those were the only two games like them. There were no other 3D computer games on a massive scale. They Created the MMO as we know it.

I think you are truely ranting when hindsight is 20/20. Sure there are difernt games out wich people might prefer. Due to UO and EQ leading the way, many other companies have made quality MMOs. If UO and EQ did not exist we would not have these other MMOs that you seem to proclaim as the godsend to save us from UO and EQ.

Get off your high horse and realize that all games are different. There is no "best" game. There are only different games that different people prefer. To each his own.

gpett · February 2007

Originally posted by vajuras

I dont care for this article much at all. I have not played UO but from what I have read in the article that sounds like my ideal sort of game. These WoW / Vanguard MMOs just dont make much logiocal sense to me. I'm sitting there fighting a mob and a few seconds later a mob spawns right uptop of me I dont think thats realistic, believeable, or fun. I'd like to play an MMO thats player driven that allows me to make an impact. I'd like to be able to help cull some dangerous animal population and like to see my efforts COUNT. I am not down for fighting some hard fight only to see the mobs respawn a few seconds later like nothing happened.
Now, I am NOT down for senseless ganking/griefing but I do like the idea of being able to take loot. That would give pvp a lot more point in an MMO. it should probably cost aa guild money to attack a town just like it costs the defenders a lot to defend.
I want an MMO where I can make an impact. these quest driven MMOs can be fun but they are nothing all that special really. they are static fake worlds where I dont make an impact and I dont count. In WoW I can kill a dangerous mob only to see it respawn a few seconds later. I can do a quests and then feel proud til I see 10 other people turn in that quest and get the exact same speech. would love to see more dynamic and simulation. dont knock original ideas all because you are happy with your static, fake stories / quests that my lil 9yr old daughter can write

Well said!

Harafnir · February 2007

Originally posted by Stradden

Steve Wison returns with his Weekly Casual Play column. This week, Steve weighs in on the world vs. game debate with a look back at his experiences in the original Ultima Online.

From a casual play perspective it's hard to imagine a worse game than what Ultima Online delivered a decade ago. It's also surprising that from that terrible genesis we have some of the great games we do today, along with the promise of more to come. Even games touted as being by and for the hardcore player, like Vanguard, have moved far away from the horrible experience that was UO.

Read the whole column here.

Well, it is clear any old idiot can write columns now for an MMO site. Yeah ok, you did not like a skillbased system, but think WOW level system, or simpler is the best ever.. Good for you. That does NOT mean real RPGs are wrong, it just means that you are an unintelligent twat with the attention span of a goldfish.. That is NOT the games fault...

But thanks for trying your best to dumb down an already dumbed down market. That is exactly what most people hope a site supporting MMOs will do. Make them even simpler, aiming at people that dont like MMOs at all. Good work.

Howdy, Stranger!

General: Casual Play: World vs. Game...

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

General: Casual Play: World vs. Game...

Comments