Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
The Perfect MMO: I. Production Priorities
wrockholz
Member Posts: 52
Making the Perfect MMO
By Wesley Rockholz
I. Production Priorities
Looking over at the hundreds of MMOs available to gamers these days, it has become apparent to me that each (well, most) has it's ups and downs. Some are more extreme than others, but most without doubt have content which others lack. In thinking of this, I have recently thought to myself for days... what's stopping me from imagining the perfect MMO? I've decided to share my ideas, and I definitely am interested in your feedback, and if any developers want to take some ideas, go ahead. Just have some heart and give myself and my fellow forum-goers some credit.
I figured it would be best to first come up with a list of five or so priorities for the imaginary production of our "perfect MMO." Looking at all of the feedback I have seen and read about involving MMO's such as World of Warcraft, Warhammer Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Age of Conan, Lord of the Rings Online, etc, I commonly see things like "this game needs better PvP," "there isn't much PvE content in this game," "the graphics and animations suck in this game," or "the UI is confusing in this game." And considering all of this feedback, here is my opinion as to what the priorities are in a "perfect MMO."
1. A straightforward, simple, and responsive user interface.
This is in my mind the absolute most essential part of a solid MMO. The UI truly defines the functionality of a game.
First of all, lets talk about simplicity. Countless games ignore this. More often than not, I sign in to a game for the first time completely lost amongst the multitude of maps, chat panels, action bars, menu navigators, statistic pages and bars, bag slots and equipment panels. Keep it simple people. Honestly, I could get by most games with one single action bar, a small chat panel, a mini map, and two character portraits. Hit ESC for the behind the scenes stuff, and leave the other pages to keyboard mapping (B for bags, M for map, K for skills, etc.). I honestly don't need to see that all of the time.
The first game that comes to find when I think of a simple UI (although it is totally and completely not at all an MMO) is Fable 2. For those of you that have not played it, Fable 2 is an Xbox 360 fantasy role playing game. Fable keeps things painless in two ways. One, it uses transparency efficiently. Whenever something on the UI is not in use for a short amount of time, it fades away and reappears when it is called for again (i.e. When you have full health, your health bar fades. When you lose life, it reappears). Two, it keeps equipment, spells (switching their hotkeys), quests, and stats to the start (ESC) menu, so that it doesn't distract you while you are playing the game. It also keeps your attention away from stat calculating and gear managing and focusses the player on playing the game rather than spending their time navigating through menus. I find that there is absolutely no reason that this system could not be applied to MMOs.
Furthermore, lets consider the response the user should get from the UI. Plain and simple: immediate. The moment I press “1,” I should see my wizard start charging up a fireball to throw in someone’s face. I shouldn’t see “You can’t do that while moving” when I am obviously standing still, and I shouldn’t have to watch depressingly as my computer momentarily freezes when it cost me fifteen hundred bucks. At first, it seems like this doesn’t matter. But when you get to fast pace game content such as PvP skirmishes, in which you are using your abilities immediately after their global cooldown, there isn’t any time (not even milliseconds) for interface lag. I would also prefer not to see menu-opening animations, such as in AoC, in which the pages slide out from the side of the screen. This causes some lag when opening more than one page at once and most of the time pisses me off. A lot. Something as simple as a panel with text shouldn’t take much effort to bring up.
2. An interactive, diverse, demanding, and rewarding combat system.
Let’s face it. In the end, the majority of the great MMOs out there generally break down to combat. You can’t have a game completely based on crafting and gathering. What would you use the results and products for? And you can’t have a game completely based on social interactions. It ends up being a 3D chat room without any meaningful purpose. You may as well be on Facebook. So, in my opinion, the second most important factor in this “perfect MMO” is the combat system.
Why don’t we start this section off with a small anecdote? Player A is a warrior-based character wielding a sword and a shield and wearing full plate armor. Player B sees Player A. They decide to fight. When I say “interactive,” I mean I want both of these players to feel like they are part of this battle. I don’t want Player B to think as he walks up to Player A, “Oh look another noob, I’m going to DPS he dies, then get my phat loot and <insert useless pixel currency here> points. (This also explains why demanding combat is important as well: I don’t want to players to right click on each other then watch and hope the outcome is in their favor. I want to players to get involved.) Instead, I want Player B to think, “Oh look another player, since I don’t know how good he is, I should premeditate and come up with a strategy. Maybe since he is wearing plate armor and a shield, I should use a heavy mace to break the armor. Or maybe since he is a melee oriented character, I should use my ranged spells or my bow to defeat him from afar and avoid his close ranged sword.” Apart from coming up with a strategy, I want the players to have to think on their toes during combat. I don’t want the players thinking “I’m just going to continue beating on him and hope his life reaches zero before mine does.” Why don’t we continue our small adventure with Player A and Player B so I can show you what I mean? Our two heroes finally engage in combat. Rather than watching two characters dance around executing the same pretty flourishes sequentially and without any thought, I want Player B (wielding his heavy mace) to think, “Okay, he just lowered his guard to attack. I’ll parry, then while he is still dazed from the aftershock, I’ll strike at his chest to crack his armor, allowing further damage to pour through.” Therefore, I want Player A to think, now that I can’t strike back or parry because my character is still dazed from the aftershock of being blocked, I’ll step to the right and dodge Player B’s attack, creating an opening while he struggles to recuperate from the heavy swing of his mace, then cut at his arm to make the weapon more difficult to manage.
I feel that an extremely interactive combat system should be paired with diverse aspects. Although it can be quite complex, I don’t want every fight to be “Swing, parry, counterattack, step, repeat.” Let me provide another (quite similar) example to help you conceptualize what I mean. Pretend Player B, who is wielding a bow this time as opposed to a heavy mace, approaches Player A once again, who is of course wearing his classic plate armor, sword, and shield. This time, Player A knows he is at an extreme disadvantage. If he blatantly charges Player B, by the time he comes within attack range, he will already have been obliterated by armor piercing arrows. So Player A needs a new strategy. He looks around. His surroundings: an overgrown boulder, a tall, thick, dead tree, and a decent sized dirt mound. Obviously, Player A has accumulated some information and realized he could possibly have a chance here using his surroundings as cover. As you can see, based on many factors such as the games environment, player equipment, and player premeditation, there is a multitude of possible outcomes in a more interactive and diverse combat system in an MMO.
Finally, why would a player fight for no reward? Apart from the classic “money, equipment, and consequential QQ over global game chat,” I want some satisfaction! First, listen to the Rolling Stones song. It’s okay, go ahead. I’ll wait. How was it? I want the player to get something more than pixels out of coming out of a battle successful and alive. If anyone is familiar with the game Gears of War for the Xbox, you know what satisfaction feels like. For those who don’t, when you defeat a player, they are forced to crawl around helplessly until a teammate arrives to revive them. However, if you reach them, you can “execute” them. Yes, it is just as fun as it sounds, and you have limitless ways of doing it. Step on their head. Rip them to shreds with a chainsaw. Blow off their head with a revolver. Snap their neck with a crossbow string. Stick a grenade to them and watch as they roll around helplessly while the timer counts down to zero. I want players of the “perfect MMO” to feel the same after a kill. Let them torture and devastate their powerless opponent. Let them see the blood splatter all over their screen as they mutilate the body and crush their bones under their hammer or their foot. Let them feel like that fight was worth the time.
3. Include every player’s interests.
Seriously. This is so incredibly important to me. A lot of times we forget those players who are solely interested in PvE, PvP, crafting and gathering, or live social events. There needs to be a connecting balance between each as well. The “perfect MMO” should have a balance between the four, and each should affect the other. For example, lets say a guild goes out and in PvP combat captures a city. First of all, they can use weapons, armor, and siege equipment crafted for them by other players. Second of all, maybe, now that they have captured this city, they now have access to the quest hubs the city has to offer and maybe passage to some raids. Additionally, maybe it is around the holiday season, and there is a holiday-related live event occurring in that city that they can now participate in.
I find it also extremely essential to apply the same interactive properties to everything in the game, in addition to combat. First of all, we can apply it to PvE, everything from simple quests to extensive raids and boss fights. Within quests, it just doesn’t make sense that after 5 years of an active MMO, that same dwarf in the middle of the same freezing forest, only fifty meters or so from the same town, is still asking random travelers to kill the same twenty bears and gather the same twenty bear pelts to make the same bear pelt blanket because he is cold. No wonder he is cold. He refuses to walk to the town from the chilly forest. Also, get your own book you lazy quest giver, no I will not grab the book next to you for you because you are too “weary” to get up and grab it from the shelf. I believe that MMO standard quests need more variety, more meaning, and more player investment and interaction. Maybe once the dwarf gets his blanket, he now reveals that he is stuck in the forest because he got lost while hunting, and he will ask the next random traveler to escort him back to town. This may not seem like much, but think of it on a larger scale. Imagine this: Player A stumbles upon a warcamp preparing to assault a city. He decides to partake in a quest to aid the warriors in their siege of the city. Once the quest is completed, the warriors may ask Player A to go on a quest helping them defend the city from the counterattack, then help them escort some civilians to their new base of operations. On the other hand, Player B, noticing the smoke from the now burning city, and goes to the defeated soldiers who were driven out of their city, and receives a quest to attack the army that Player A aided, therefore applying the same concept to PvP.
Additionally, developers tend to think of crafting and gathering as side tasks that players consider as something to do while leveling, either to provide them with some equipment, or just make boring grinds slightly less tedious. This is such a bad decision in my opinion. Think about it. When real blacksmiths decide, hey, I’m going to make a sword today, they didn’t look in their recipe book, get 5 bars of steel, then fumble around with their hands near an anvil. It was much more complicated. The bars must be heated in a forge, then hammered into a blade, then cooled, then grinded to sharpen the blade, then tempered, then completed with the handle, hilt, guard and pommel. I want the player to go through this extensive experience each time they make a weapon. It makes crafting much more personal and customized. This way there doesn’t have to be a tag saying, “Player A made this weapon” at the bottom of it’s statistic tag. It may have a certain stylization to it, or a certain symbol or pommel that signifies it being crafted by Player A.
4. Limited barriers and accessibility for the player.
I mean this in two specific ways. The first applies to the environment. More often than not a “zone” is simply a flat plane of grass with some randomly placed trees, a body of water, and a town that serves as a quest hub, all surrounded by some hills that for some reason, the player has no means of climbing and traversing. And yet, most MMO’s claim that walking around these zones is somehow “true freedom,” “limitless,” and they call it “exploration." No. False. When I think exploration, I think, “Wow! I get to go and explore places never seen by other players!” But despite my best efforts, I honestly can’t think of anything to bring that to life. But I can most certainly think of a way to imitate it in an innovative and rewarding way. For example, maybe if there is some brush, foliage, roots, etc. off to the side that appear weak. Commonly, MMO developers these days just label that a barrier. Instead, in my “perfect MMO,” yes, it would be a temporary barrier, but what’s stopping the player from taking his colossal, enchanted battle axe, that slays dragons and cuts down hordes of orcs, and cutting away some plants? Nothing, that’s what. Or what’s stopping that nimble archer elf, who has climbed ladders to reach the ramparts of battlekeeps and pierced the eyes of his helpless victims with his bow from climbing over a little hill that separates two zones? Nothing, that’s what. Or what’s stopping a player from building a boat, battleship or tiny rowboat, and braving the perilous seas beyond the boring old mainland? Nothing, that’s what. Although these few examples I have don’t completely provide limitless, novel exploration, it does break away some boundaries and get us one step closer.
The second way in which this priority applies is in character creation and advancement. Let me give you an example of something I hate with a passion. Player A makes a new character in an MMO. He picks the Warrior class. This means he can only use swords, shields and heavy armor. Player B picks the Archer class, which means he can only use bows and light armor. Although they are both at advantages and disadvantages in a fight, they are stuck with these classes and limitations. Forever. This means, for the rest of their MMO career, Player A and B…
• Must use the same weapons.
• Must use the same armor.
• Must have the same haircut.
• Must have the same body and facial features.
• Must use the same abilities.
** Must play the same way.
This… is a problem… It creates an extremely repetitive and tedious game in which players are limited both in leveling and in end game content. This is where an MMO, in my opinion, needs a leveling process more like that of Oblivion. For those who are not familiar, you play through that game without ANY skill limitations. This means that the greatest swordsman in the world could, with some more training and leveling, easily become the greatest archer in the world. There’s nothing stopping him. Each skill has a level of it’s own. This also provides for a more balanced, skill based combat system. Because the max level for each skill is easily attainable, and is reached separately from other skills, the player doesn’t need to work on every skill, but is not restricted to one skill, and therefore players can play end game content based less on their skill level and more on their actual skill using that weapon, or spell, or whatever it is, and players can switch playstyles any time.
5. Outstanding graphics and solid animations.
There will definitely be some people who disagree with me on this. I know for a fact there will be a few gamers who will say, “No no, Wes! It’s the gameplay that matters!” or “Pac Man had bad graphics but it was still a fun game!” Okay, fair enough. Pac Man is sweet. But let me ask you this: Is the game still fun when the grass is one shade of green, the sky is one shade of blue, and your character looks like he has a pole stuck up his ass when he is running? Sure maybe it is, but it certainly doesn’t make the game visually appealing, and aesthetics are definitely important in my mind. Saying a game without good graphics is like saying a horrible piece of art is good if it has reason behind it. Yes, you may be right, but I wouldn’t buy it to hang in my house, and then have to explain it to every one who walks in. It just doesn’t look good for me. It also goes along with the exploration factor of the “perfect MMO.” Who wants to go looking around for more green and blue in an ugly game? Personally, if I go out of my way to explore, I want to be rewarded with some visuals. Show me a mountain view of an extensive evergreen forest. Show me a quiet, peaceful image of the ocean from the beach. Show me a vista in an oasis somewhere in the desert.
Moreover, if the animations aren’t smooth and don’t flow, then it makes it extremely difficult to generate player satisfaction. If I cut off my enemy’s head, and the animation wasn’t smooth, I am bound to be disappointed with the result: Frame 1: My character posed for a strike. Frame 2: Headless enemy. Where was the flashy sword combo flourish? Where was my enemy’s horrified, half severed head? It just simply doesn’t come together.
Well. That was quite a time. 3000 words later. For those of you who made it this far congratulations! I am truly impressed. I am also extremely thankful. I put a lot of thought, time, and effort into this. I want your feedback, too! Thanks for reading, and I hope to be writing a second part next week!
~Wesley Rockholz
Comments
A few points.
First of all, bravo, you really capture some of the great Needs for the next big MMO that will come out that will capture my time at least. Interface can break a game right off the bat if its not done right. I also especially enjoyed the fact you recognize that 'the perfect mmo' needs to have every aspect of itself Interact with each other meaningfully (point 3).
The combat system too, it must be rewarding and more than it is now, though I disagree on the specifics you mentioned.
I also disagree on a Capless skill system. First of all, I think a skill system would be the way to go for a "Perfect MMO" but it must have caps. Otherwise every character will eventually look The Same. Now you need to have the cap big enough that it would allow for multiple play styles on the same character, and make it feel like you can diversify without causing you to lose the edge in whatever focus you choose. Also, a capped system would have to be more balanced, but if it is done right a Capped system is superior to Capless. The goal to a great skill system is to give the player Meaningful Choices. With a capless system, you dont have to make any choices really except what comes first.
My 2 cents.
These three things doth a wise man fear: A storm at sea, a moonless night, and the anger of a gentle man
First of all, thanks for the feedback. Second of all, yes, I can see where my specifics can be love-hate-ish. In response to the skills not having a cap response, I realize now I forgot to include that, but yes, I intended for skills to have a cap. I was trying to put more emphasis on the whole, level your skills individually, freedom with selections sort of idea. I didn't mean there wouldn't be caps, otherwise it would end up as a grind based game! Which I hate, by the way.
I mostly agree on everything but article 3.
I believe that perfect MMO would be perfect for the individual, not the general population, if you know what I mean.
For example, if a person likes PvE but not PvP, the game would cater to his playstyle. To all the people that prefer to play MMO's this way the game would be perfect.
If the game tried to cater to both PvE and PvP, it would no longer be perfect for those looking for 'pure' PvE or PvP experience. Thus I think that the games should try not to please everyone with their game. Of course there should be those games that try to balance both PvE and PvP, but there should be as well MMO's that are PvP or PvE-only (for the most part).
Same could apply to the neverending discussion of soloing vs. grouping in an MMO. Since there are 2 groups with different views, if the gaming company tries to please both groups one side is going to be disappointed in the end (and no perfection can be achieved). This is why I think that splitting the games to 2 groups as well would please everyone in the end.
What you said actually describes the newest Final Fantasy MMO by at least 80%. The difference mainly being that it doesn't try to cater to everyone's playstyle, but a specific market instead.
Anyway, it was an interesting read.
One MMO won't be perfect to everyone, so presumably this discussion is about what's perfect for the OP? Limits discussion a bit, as the OP can basically trump most discussion by saying, "No I don't like that."
I'm curious though, does the OP want Advancement Freedom or does he specifically demand they're called Skills? Because Champions is a timely example of an ability-centric system which provides just as much advancement freedom as a typical skills-based game.
I suppose my push for ability-based games works under a similar flawed logic: just because ability-centric systems have historically provided most interesting abilities/combat that doesn't mean a skills-centric system can't also have solid combat with cool abilities.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Can you explain what you're asking a little bit more with the advancement freedom / skills question? If you are asking for my definition of skills, I don't mean an ability like "Fireball." I mean the characters skill in a specific area, like "Archery" or "Swords."
Can you explain what you're asking a little bit more with the advancement freedom / skills question? If you are asking for my definition of skills, I don't mean an ability like "Fireball." I mean the characters skill in a specific area, like "Archery" or "Swords."
mm easy in real life you need power and timing
now we got lot of power in game but timing isnt needed lol
if they added the timing vector there wouldnt be any need for spell delay etc
foe could screw up your timing by feint etc
now its so static its laughable
check like golf you cant just mash the button you got to time it right etc
if they added the timing dimention in mmo it would make a big dif
The current model of MMOs is obsolete: they require you to be online as much as possible to achieve whatever goals the developers set for you (which is mostly getting more powerful items in a neverending cycle)
The New Design for MMo must :
- remove the numerical lvl-based progression;
- make soloing possible, but much slower than grouping, and less fun;
- create a game engine which is running on medium settings on hardware 3-years old;
- not try to copy WoW
My addiction History:
>> EQ1 2000-2004 - Shaman/Bard/Wizard/Monk - nolife raid-whore
>> WoW 2004-2009 + Cataclysm for 2 months - hardcore casual
>> Current status : done with MMO, too old for that crap.
I disagree with #2. Well if you have combat it's gotta be good, however it's possible to make a game that almost completely ignores it: A tale in the desert, Secondlife, WurmOnline(though there is a PvP focus).
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
3) Include everyone's Interest is the most important. Or alternatively speaking have enough endgame content and balance it to satisfy the diverse type of player.
5) A mmorpg with outstanding graphic means not every computer can run it. Aoc is a good example. A limited amount of people can't even play it. And a majority of people can't handle the slow frame rate in mass combat.
Thanks for the feedback guys. I'm going to post a second part hopefully this weekend, starting with the leveling process. I already posted a forum thread asking for advice as to what you would all like to see in the next good MMO's leveling process (or if there even is one!). Click here to see it: www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3093978#3093978
Thanks again.
Can you explain what you're asking a little bit more with the advancement freedom / skills question? If you are asking for my definition of skills, I don't mean an ability like "Fireball." I mean the characters skill in a specific area, like "Archery" or "Swords."
I'm asking what matters to you more: calling them Skills, or Advancement Freedom?
Because like I said before, Champions removes all the typical limits imposed by class in games, yet it's done without calling them Skills. Instead you choose a new Power every few levels and (within very light limitations) you can choose anything you want.
My point being: calling them Skills is not necessary to achieve any gameplay goal. Any reason you could come up with to do a Skills-based system in a game, I could come up with an Ability-based and/or Lateral Progression (Planetside/FFXI) system which achieved those goals.
(I'm tempted to say it's the lack of limitations that made Champions combat shallow, but it's really the lack of ability variety that does it. Although creating a need for a specific variety of abilities is a form of limitation itself (like if each character needed an Interrupt power, a Block power, a CC power, an AOE, and a single target power; the game wouldn't limit you on which Interrupt power you choose, but it would be designed in a way where it's extra painful to try to go through the game without all 5 types of powers.
But really, a complete lack of limitations makes every character the same after enough time investment. Is that what you want? Doesn't lend itself well to role-playing if everyone's playing the same role eventually...)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I see what you mean now, Axehilt, thanks much for clarifying. In a way, the fact that all characters remain the same in the end based on this side means a few things to me. First of all, it puts everyone at an even statistical position, leaning the game towards skill based combat. Players would play the game because they are literally GOOD at playing say, a wizard, or a warrior. They know how to cast spells efficiently better than they know how to swing a sword efficiently. Also, the fact that it defeats the role play aspec can be countered in some ways. The gameplay would be crafted so that not everyone is an absolute behemoth with maxxed out skills wielding heavy armor and big swords and can also heal and use magic as well. Maybe, a magic user is restricted by armor, so he is forced to play his character by wearing a robe so he is free to cast his spells, or an archer benefits by wearing light armor because he likes to move quickly and doesn't wear a helmet so he can see his targets better, or a swordsman uses plate armor because he is threatened more by being in the frontlines. In this form of gameplay, the player plays his character not based on what is "best," but in the way he prefers, in a sense. Maybe this is just my thoughts, please say anything if you disagree.
First off, I want to give some constructive criticism on your writing. I think for the sake of forum posts and discussions (and drawing more people into actually reading it
), you should try to practice brevity. Long posts doesn't necessarily mean good if you can get away with explaining concepts in fewer words (probably hold back on huge examples, make them short and brief and get the point across). I basically read the headlines and enough under each headline to get an idea of what you seemed like you were trying to get at.
With #2 involving interactive combat, you explain it purely in terms of actions as defined by you. However, ever consider other ways of keeping players involved? EVE Online is a good example of a game that has very little difference in various actions (shoot gun, stop shooting gun, change targets), but a lot of whats involved in its combat is strategy. I would like to see this applied to a more individual character like skill queues (old school SWG). I think combat can be interactive outside of purely the actions that you do with your mouse and keyboard and exact timing. Imagine if you can queue up the skills/skill combos and then have more mental capacity to worry about other things like your positioning, enemy positioning, team coordination etc.
With #3, I don't think these days companies should be trying to include everybody (thats what Blizzard does and look at WoW, not saying its the worst game around, but certaintly not the best in terms of pure gameplay, but it does great in trying to include all). I think with WoW introducing the MMO concept to many, its time for companies to dissect the market and FOCUS the interests to specific groups rather than try to take the whole pie. A focused effort can specialize the MMO and satisfy a specific crowd better, not only having greater likeliness of drawing that crowd in, but more importantly keeping them there and playing. Satisfying a niche crowd has got to be many times easier than trying to satisfy an all-encompassing diverse crowd. I think its only a matter of time and I think specific niches are large enough at this point for companies to at least turn a profit and keep going with a more focused MMORPG.
Ah okay, as long as you're not against some form of limitation that's what matters (because without structure, a game isn't a game.)
The gear limitations you mention defintely would solve the problem of everyone being everything, and basically turn your game into a "lateral progression" sort of deal (since you can max every skill, but you can't use every skill at the same time.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
A solid look at where to start with a MMO.
But I totally disagree with point 3 “Include every player’s interests”. Many players interests are opposed to each other. Those who like more open PvP, those who do not. Those who want a more mature game, those who want a family game. Those who want a lot of grouping, those who want a lot of soloing. And so on.
There is room for many types of MMO’s, you don’t have to appeal to everyone, indeed it is impossible to do so. That’s just a marketing wet dream.
I actually wrote this as the first entry in a blog. It's actually only about 3,000 words, which is what the correspondents here on MMORPG.com are expected to write in each entry. I just posted it in the forums to get some more feedback. Forums are a bit more popular than blogs on this website apparently. Thanks for the feedback though!
That's why you creat a mmorpg with everything, or satisfy as many people as possible. Wow is a good example. It have everything.
MMO’s are an entertainment media like film or literature. Do you think that a family film will be a success with twenty year olds? Or a natural history programme will appeal to all?
We do not all read the same kind of books or want to go and see the same kind of film. But this is what many MMO companies have tried to do and the result is a mish mash that truly pleases no one.
That's why you creat a mmorpg with everything, or satisfy as many people as possible. Wow is a good example. It have everything.
No, that's why you make Multiple Games for Different kinds of People, not just some big mess with everything in it at once. If you create PvE PvP people will suffer, and vice versa. That's why you need two games to satisfy everyone's interests.
That's why you creat a mmorpg with everything, or satisfy as many people as possible. Wow is a good example. It have everything.
No, that's why you make Multiple Games for Different kinds of People, not just some big mess with everything in it at once. If you create PvE PvP people will suffer, and vice versa. That's why you need two games to satisfy everyone's interests.
Even more than that...
Some people like high fantasy. Some like space games. Some like post apocolyptic... and so on.
If you're talking about a game with a certain focus, like high fantasy, then "the perfect" MMO would have separate servers for PvP oriented and PvE. The designs and balancing would, and should, be completely separate for each. For instance, any balancing and/or design choices in gameplay should focus on different aspects within their game model. For example, the lore and graphics would be the same for all of the servers, but the gameplay would be quite different.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
That kind of MMO would be far from perfect, actually. Well, it could be "perfect" as you say it, but there could definitely be better games out there as well.
For the simple reason that the production budget would be split into two, which means less content for each playstyle. If the MMO truly was perfect (for the player), the company would put all it's efforts and budget to the gameplaystyle the player likes (PvE Or PvP in this example).
And of course there would have to be two games for everyone's wishes to be fulfilled (in this simple form). But in the end, everyone would win.
If you ask 100 people what the perfect MMO is, you'll get 100 different answers.
10 hotkeys is fine for some people, but others like more depth and would want to have at least 30 hotkeys for different abilities. A lot of people like a robust chatting system with separate channels for every little thing, while others will use 2 channels and be quite happy with that. Some people like the combat and fighting, some like crafting, some like fleshed out working economies, and some just like a plot of land with materials for building.
A lot of people like easy, simple gameplay with enemies that fall dead when you say boo, others like long drawn out fights with strategic placement and the need for companions to help bring down the big mofo. Heck, some people don't like combat at all, and will just sit in a gathering and gab it up or /emote.
Some like skill sets that require tons of planning and spreadsheets and exact mathematical computations with flowgraphs and pie charts. Some could care less and just load up the new skill and hope it looks cool. Some people like to just buy a new skill or get it automatically, ding, oh look a new skill, let's see what it does. Some like to gather components and mix and match different ingredients or moves to create a new skill from scratch with trial and error or extreme character study with manuals and blueprints.
Some people like grind and don't care about 10, 100, or 1000 kill X, and would probably not even do quests, just kill hundreds of thousands of mobs with friends or alone and plow through content. Some people like ingenious, story driven lore with in game personalities and long cut scenes.
And the list goes on and on...
The perfect MMO is completely in the mind of the user, and will never exist.
"Granted thinking for yourself could be considered a timesink of shorter or longer duration depending on how smart..or how dumb you are."
The important thing, though, is to get the big picture right. When it comes to details everyone has different opinions.. but that's why it's good they're mostly just details anyway.
PvP vs. PvE.... Casual vs. Hardcore... Soloing vs. Grouping... Theme X vs. Theme Y... Themepark vs. Sandbox..
Those are the main subjects developers should be concerned about.. usually when a person tends to like feature X, they also prefer feature Y that is usually present as well.
Most people aren't looking for perfect MMO anyway- only one that satisfies their interests as well as possible.. which means mistakes tend to happen as well and all the features won't be 'great', but as long as the big picture is, it's alright.
I know I didn't state it earlier, but for those of you who are saying this can never happen due to a lacking budget, I wrote this with an unrestricted budget in mind. So the imaginary company making this "perfect MMO" has an infinite amount of money. Hackers.
If I had an infinate amount of money I could save the world. Or make a perfect MMO…well the worlds not going anywhere is it?