Rethinking the MMO

cityzen · March 2007

Just thought I'd share a nice article, not sure I agree with everything here. Peg.com is already taken

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070326/sorens_01.shtml

Mordacai · March 2007

good article, I don't agree with all of it but it was a good read.

devils_hymn · March 2007

Originally posted by Mordacai
good article, I don't agree with all of it but it was a good read.

What he said.

nomadian · March 2007

6 pages! Read the first couple and interesting reading.
Some of the quotes I liked so far:

If my memory serves me correctly, massively multiplayer was simply marketing-speak used to promote Everquest when it launched.

Haha so ironic when you see arguments about games fitting this definition or not.

Todays PEGs are in much the same situation, as their central gameplay has changed little from ancient CRPGs (computer role playing-games) and MUDs (multi-user dungeons), which were little more than scantily-clad stat-building exercises. Just as they did with adventure games, clever developers will soon adopt the most compelling feature of todays PEGs, the persistent entity, and combine it with more appealing gameplay mechanics, relegating the MMO as we know it to the bargain bin of history, so to speak.

That IS good news.

Even many of the players who subscribe to PEGs concede that the gameplay itself is not stimulating; it is primarily the potential for advancing their characters that motivates them to continue playing. And since advancement generally serves only to improve a characters ability to do well in combat, an unsatisfying cycle exists.

Bang on.

nomadian · March 2007

Problem #6: Exorbitant Time Requirements
It is only a matter of time before the mainstream media comes down on World of Warcraft like a load of bricks. We have already seen anti-WoW crusading on the front page of Yahoo! as well as on The Tyra Banks Show (or at least, people watching the show saw it). While it is certainly debatable whether such games are evil, soul-consuming, life-wrecking monsters, the fact remains that they are more enjoyable when played in long stretches than when played in short ones.
However, avoiding the ire of the media is just a secondary reason for designing a game to be enjoyable in short play sessions. The biggest reason is that a large portion of the market is unwilling or unable to dedicate a lot of their time to your game. Former PEG players who have had to quit because of time constraints, uncooperative spouses, jobs, graduation from college, etc., might be willing to play a PEG that provided equal enjoyment for a smaller time commitment. People who game at lunch, on breaks, at the office after work, or even during work could be buying and playing your game if it provided enough enjoyment within their limited time frame. Why should they be wasting their companys money playing Solitaire when they could be wasting it playing your game? Instead, it has become conventional wisdom that you have to dedicate all your gaming time and even a big chunk of your life to enjoy a PEG, and as a result, this part of the market is largely untapped.
In current PEGs, three elements are to blame for making short play stints unsatisfying.
First, players have to spend too much time organizing and preparing, whether it is seeking out other players for grouping, traveling (often to join those players), or arranging players into groups, giving instructions, and clearing trash (typically, unchallenging encounters that yield little to no reward, but that must be cleared before it is possible to fight a boss) for a raid. Playing with others is fun; organizing and preparing is not.
Second, players typically must play for a long time before they receive any reward, yet another aspect of current PEGs that would be a death warrant for any single-player game. When players fail to earn any reward, they either end up playing a long session in order to earn the reward or quit altogether because they are not having fun. Neither situation is desirable.
Third, many challenges simply take long, continuous play sessions to overcome. If the player leaves the game before the end, he must start again from the beginning in his next attempt. In many cases, even staying logged in and leaving the game for a few minutes can result in disaster, whether it be from the ensuing miscommunication (Leroy Jenkins!), enemy behavior (spawning, wandering), or a suddenly short-handed group being overwhelmed.
Solution 1: Let the player have fun right away
Let players get where they are going as quickly as possible (Diablo 2s waypoints are a fine example). Let them accomplish something meaningful without having to organize with other players. If they do want to join other players, provide an efficient matchmaking feature and allow them to join each other as quickly as possible. The character summoning feature found in several games is a good solution, but it is often restricted to specific locations and/or high-level characters.
Solution 2: Unchain players from the keyboard
Sometimes, players just have to stop playing for a while. Biological needs, kids that need to be picked up or taken care of, and meals are just some of the common events that take players attention away from the game. The game design should take these interruptions into account. Players should be able to get back into the action quickly and without causing in-game problems such as death/dismemberment, separation from the group, etc. The Diablo series, which despite its flaws is one of the best game design teaching tools in existence (Magic: the Gathering and Deus Ex are two others), solved this problem neatly with Town Portals, which allow players to go instantly to a safe area for as long as is needed and return at will.

Blizzard's Diablo II
The game should also break up challenges into easily-consumed chunks. Players should be able to complete all challenges in a reasonable amount of time; if the designer wants to make a challenge longer, he can break it up into smaller parts that do not have to be finished all in one go. Even better, the game could save the player or groups progress for that challenge and allow them to resume it later. World of Warcraft has this type of feature, but its checkpoints within each challenge are still too far apart. Also, it should not be assumed that because a certain challenge is at the end of the game, all players attempting it are hardcore enough to dedicate an entire evening to the endeavor.
When deciding how long is too long, a designer should take into consideration what people are not sayingthe people who are not playing PEGs because of the required time investment. Shortening the time necessary to complete challenges can attract this quite large group of players, while at the same time it is not likely to alienate existing players. Hey, this game sucks because it only takes two hours to kill the boss instead of ten! is an improbable response, especially if there is more substance to the game than passing grueling tests of endurance for the sole purpose of obtaining bragging rights.
Solution 3: Let the player accomplish something in a short play session
Players should be able to do something satisfying within a fairly short amount of game time. It does not have to be large rewards such gaining a level, finding a great item, killing a boss, or earning a new ability, although those certainly work. Smaller accomplishments such as advancing to a new area, creating something, and completing an objective or quest can all be used to provide the steady supply of rewards that makes those short sessions worthwhile and keeps players coming back for more.
BBS door games such as Trade Wars 2002, Barren Realms Elite, and The Pit are great examples of persistent-entity games that were satisfying in small doses. They limited the player to a certain amount of time or turns per day, yet they were designed in such a way that they were enjoyable in small quantities while retaining their addictive nature.

That is a great piece. Sums up some of my 'issues' with mmorpgs.

nsorens · March 2007

Clearly a brilliant mind. He should be our new overlord, and we should send him money and fine gaming hardware to express our thanks.

Drafell · March 2007

It is a good article, and it very relevant to the stalemate the market is currently in, although through reading the article I couldn't help but be drawn to the fact the GuildWars already integrates a lot of his suggestions...

Knightblast · March 2007

While it is an interesting read, it suffers from a fundamental flaw.

The author attempts to redefine the genre as a "persistent entity game" based on his view that the "massively multiplayer" aspect is moribund, needless and beside the point.

This is an assumption and in my experience a wrong one. Many SP games are "persistent entity games" in that my character is a persistent entity, I save him, he pops up again when I start the game with the same collected and saved advances as he had before I logged off. I do not need an MMO to have a persistent entity experience, all I need is a game that allows me to save progress, and there are many (including console games) that allow this.

What I find attractive in an MMO, as opposed to a single player "PEG", is that there are many, many other players around me in the world. Clearly this is unimportant to the author, but it's a main aspect of my own attraction to MMOs, and in my own discussions with other players, it's a main attraction for them as well. Playing with 8 players, as the author suggests, would be very restrictive to me, and would feel rather artificial. The attraction to these games is precisely that they feel like vibrant, alive worlds.

The article, therefore, strikes me mostly as a projection of one player's rather quixotic observations on MMOs, and a manifesto for changing them into something he would prefer: namely an online, not so massivley multiplayer game.

Bah humbug to that.

nsorens · March 2007

Where does it say that the massively multiplayer aspect is needless? The article says, "That’s not to say that all these other players are a bad thing; they’re just not the most important thing in this particular type of game." It also says, "The reality is that the MMO as we know it is primarily about advancing a “secure” persistent entity (character, team, vehicle, country, etc.) in a multiplayer environment of any size. (Diablo 2’s wonderful experiment with “Closed,” “Open,” and “Ladder” realms provides convincing evidence that the feeling of accomplishment increases—and attracts more players—when it is validated by the presence of other players and by attempted cheat prevention.)"

Furthermore, the article is all about building persistent-entity games for people who aren't current MMO customers. It's about taking a universally appealing aspect of MMOs and bringing it to other genres, not about blowing up current games. If the "massively multiplayer" aspect is what makes the game worth playing for you, you're probably already a customer of one or more of the many games which already offer this feature in spades and therefore aren't part of that "potential market" the article talks about.

Originally posted by Novaseeker

While it is an interesting read, it suffers from a fundamental flaw.

The author attempts to redefine the genre as a "persistent entity game" based on his view that the "massively multiplayer" aspect is moribund, needless and beside the point.

This is an assumption and in my experience a wrong one. Many SP games are "persistent entity games" in that my character is a persistent entity, I save him, he pops up again when I start the game with the same collected and saved advances as he had before I logged off. I do not need an MMO to have a persistent entity experience, all I need is a game that allows me to save progress, and there are many (including console games) that allow this.

What I find attractive in an MMO, as opposed to a single player "PEG", is that there are many, many other players around me in the world. Clearly this is unimportant to the author, but it's a main aspect of my own attraction to MMOs, and in my own discussions with other players, it's a main attraction for them as well. Playing with 8 players, as the author suggests, would be very restrictive to me, and would feel rather artificial. The attraction to these games is precisely that they feel like vibrant, alive worlds.

The article, therefore, strikes me mostly as a projection of one player's rather quixotic observations on MMOs, and a manifesto for changing them into something he would prefer: namely an online, not so massivley multiplayer game.

Bah humbug to that.

Akeys · March 2007

Well written article which highlights the problems well.

Would have liked to seen some mention of how the lack of corpse looting and other fun PK features in the current cycle of MMORPG have lead to a unchallenging and dull environment. UO (pre Trammel) was the first "wild West" frontier game. Shadowbane and Eve Online are the only ones left. I was watching "Deadwood" last night and thinking, "Playing UO used to be like that. I was free to kill or be killed. No MMORPG since has been so exciting."

Looking forward to going back to a world where leaving the city gate raises the blood pressure ...

Rattrap · March 2007

Originally posted by Drafell

It is a good article, and it very relevant to the stalemate the market is currently in, although through reading the article I couldn't help but be drawn to the fact the GuildWars already integrates a lot of his suggestions...

True

I also had this impression. But no wonder. Author highly praises Diablo , and GW is indeed developed by part of Diablo dev team.

But i also feel that Turbine was going along lines of his ideas with what they did to DDO. But it miserably failed.

On the other side LOTRO is kind of half way - combining some of the new ideas with the old stale (but perhaps allready conditioned)

Also AOC , sounds like a game that will try to come close to Authors recomendations...

Anyway. Awsome article.

Let hope some game developers read it

Knightblast · March 2007

Originally posted by nsorens

Where does it say that the massively multiplayer aspect is needless? The article says, "That’s not to say that all these other players are a bad thing; they’re just not the most important thing in this particular type of game." It also says, "The reality is that the MMO as we know it is primarily about advancing a “secure” persistent entity (character, team, vehicle, country, etc.) in a multiplayer environment of any size. (Diablo 2’s wonderful experiment with “Closed,” “Open,” and “Ladder” realms provides convincing evidence that the feeling of accomplishment increases—and attracts more players—when it is validated by the presence of other players and by attempted cheat prevention.)"

Furthermore, the article is all about building persistent-entity games for people who aren't current MMO customers. It's about taking a universally appealing aspect of MMOs and bringing it to other genres, not about blowing up current games. If the "massively multiplayer" aspect is what makes the game worth playing for you, you're probably already a customer of one or more of the many games which already offer this feature in spades and therefore aren't part of that "potential market" the article talks about.

Saying that the massively multiplayer element is not the most important aspect of the game is really just a complete projection of that writer's prejudices. To me, it very much IS the most important thing, and so the ideas written in this article about "PEGs" just seemed completely wrong to me. I am not interested in the game simply because my character is a persistent entity, and honestly I do not think that this is the main selling point of MMOs, so I see the article's approach as wrong-headed. My impression of the article is that online gaming should go more in the direction of multiplayer (not massively multiplayer, just multiplayer) persistent entity games, and those would not be attractive to me, so in no way do I support what the article is advocating.

zoey121 · March 2007

Nice find and agree with above poster, what kept most of us in our mmorpgs long after the fun lost it's flavor was our community and guilds. The writer did not expand on what keeps folks actively subscribed. Games that offered co op play and allowed invisalbe walls to be broken, where folks could openly group together did do ok. Use to be 150 to 200 k was considered a sucess . With advent of wow does that totaly throw old numbers out of the water????

If a game is not fun the first 20 levels it is unlikely that will change the next 20 levels.

While they mentioned specific game mechanics in a way City of Heros, D & D online & guild wars have that get together for a while play have fun accomplish something.

   Yet same thing could be said for x box live. Playing with pals on line and the future of mmorpgs might just not be in the mediums we are currently seeing since design implementation costs are too high.

   I do think there is a future in the gaming industry but the current clone models will continue to be off shoots of what made wow work.



      But we need to see a company encourage social activites co opertaive play and rewards that make it worth while getting, and the journey along the way be a bit more entertaining and not so devisive to keep players apart that do not level the same as other players/or their friends.

When mmorpgs focus only on mechanics and forget the social side we forget them rather quickly too, after the content is done without the social aspect focused on what keeps folks paying to play??????

nsorens · March 2007

Originally posted by Novaseeker

Saying that the massively multiplayer element is not the most important aspect of the game is really just a complete projection of that writer's prejudices. To me, it very much IS the most important thing, and so the ideas written in this article about "PEGs" just seemed completely wrong to me. I am not interested in the game simply because my character is a persistent entity, and honestly I do not think that this is the main selling point of MMOs, so I see the article's approach as wrong-headed. My impression of the article is that online gaming should go more in the direction of multiplayer (not massively multiplayer, just multiplayer) persistent entity games, and those would not be attractive to me, so in no way do I support what the article is advocating.

I would say that it is less a projection of my prejudices and more a collection of what I have observed over more than 10 years of playing these games. (I am the author of this article, if you had not caught on from my user name and the joke post.) I agree that the social aspect of MMOs is the most important thing for many people--and there is nothing wrong with that--but I feel it is not the case for a majority of the market. If the advancement aspect of a game is flawed (through bad design, rampant cheating, etc.) and the social aspect is great, the game fails or only appeals to a small audience. If the social aspect is lame and the advancement is great, the game succeeds (Diablo 2).

This difference is magnified when you bring the potential market into consideration, not just the current one. Most console gamers couldn't care less about being in guilds or walking through towns filled with avatars of real players, but they would love to play a game where they can build up a character/team/vehicle/etc. online, appear on leaderboards, etc.

Certainly, many other factors affect the appeal of these games: graphics, style, originality, brand/license, and so on. No game can survive on the appeal of advancement alone, which is why I gave the example of Progress Quest, which does exactly that.

I'm not advocating that current MMOs be altered to fit my views; I'm saying that there is an mostly-untapped middle ground between single player games and MMOs, and that developers should build new games out of the most appealing attributes of both and make a ton of money. Right now, no one wants to take that risk, which is why so many games with online character-building are cookie-cutter games based on Everquest.

nsorens · March 2007

Originally posted by zoey121

Nice find and agree with above poster, what kept most of us in our mmorpgs long after the fun lost it's flavor was our community and guilds. The writer did not expand on what keeps folks actively subscribed. Games that offered co op play and allowed invisalbe walls to be broken, where folks could openly group together did do ok. Use to be 150 to 200 k was considered a sucess . With advent of wow does that totaly throw old numbers out of the water????

If a game is not fun the first 20 levels it is unlikely that will change the next 20 levels.

While they mentioned specific game mechanics in a way City of Heros, D & D online & guild wars have that get together for a while play have fun accomplish something.

   Yet same thing could be said for x box live. Playing with pals on line and the future of mmorpgs might just not be in the mediums we are currently seeing since design implementation costs are too high.

   I do think there is a future in the gaming industry but the current clone models will continue to be off shoots of what made wow work.



      But we need to see a company encourage social activites co opertaive play and rewards that make it worth while getting, and the journey along the way be a bit more entertaining and not so devisive to keep players apart that do not level the same as other players/or their friends.

When mmorpgs focus only on mechanics and forget the social side we forget them rather quickly too, after the content is done without the social aspect focused on what keeps folks paying to play??????

I see your point, but my argument is that the game should be enjoyable enough that you don't get bored and have to rely on the appeal of friends and guilds to make it worthwhile.

Also, I don't think that games need to keep people subscribed. They just need to make people glad they bought the game and keep them looking forward to the next game or expansion in the series. There are plenty of viable business models that don't require the player to keep paying after they buy the game, as Guild Wars and Diablo 2 showed.

I am a big fan of co-op play. Did you read the section where I talk about a co-op Xcom or Medieval game? I just don't think that people should be forced into playing co-op at times when they prefer to play alone.

Howdy, Stranger!

Rethinking the MMO

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Rethinking the MMO

Comments