Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: How Soon Until Everything is an MMO?
Stradden
Managing EditorMember CommonPosts: 6,696
MMORPG.com columnist Justin Webb writes about the growing trend in single players and small group co-op games toward looking more and more like their MMORPG cousins.
This week I have mostly been playing Mass Effect 2, Borderlands, and Star Trek Online (and wondering how Scott is going to wrap up his epic two-parter tomorrow).
Doing so has highlighted, for me, a trend that has been slowly growing throughout all of gaming: RPGs are becoming more like shooters; and shooters are becoming more like RPGs.
For example, Mass Effect 2 is a wonderfully streamlined third-person shooter with a lot of its previous incarnation's RPG-ness excised; while Borderlands is a joyful shooter that is almost indistinguishable from an MMO. It's getting hard to know what MMORPG "means" nowadays. The lines between genres are blurring. Which one is the RPG: Mass Effect 2 or Borderlands?
Cheers,
Jon Wood
Managing Editor
MMORPG.com
Comments
Hey Justin, nice article. I have often pondered the direction online-gaming is going. What happened to the days of FPS' where your only sign of skill and achievement was the godlike kill-death ratio at the end of the match? Now'a days as i play COD6 i find myself desperate to reach X level to get X or Y badge and weapons. Yet its still just a shooter at heart.
I think more and more developers are realizing that as technology improves, players wan't more from their gaming experience. RPG like features are easy to implement without having to really push the boundaries of games development. It's easy to implement RPG style reward systems in an online shooter, its easy to entice the player to continue playing with the prospect of winning a shiny new badge or gun. And thats not a bad thing. It adds another layer of game-play.
As more and more people are playing games and for much longer than they used to, we are getting bored quickly with old ideas. Gamers always crave something fresh and exciting. We are always buying new games for that next fix. But as you say, the lines are blurred. COD6 honestly has more longevity than Star Trek Online. If you head on over to the STO section you'll see my post as to why.
It seems established MMO developers are too scared to take risks anymore which is why the industry is stale, while developers who have never made RPG's/MMO's are just discovering their potential and doing a better job of it too. Thats why hybrids like Mass Effect and Borderland's are doing so well, because the established RPG/MMO industry is stale since World of Warcraft.
It was an interesting read. It kind of reminded me similar discussion on what is an RPG nowdays, which it seems is any sort of game in you control 'something' through some inteface and certain numerical values increase over time... does not exclude much really.
I think we sort reached a same point as far as the MMO part is concerned. As long it is something that requires an internet connection, you can potential interact with other players (and shooting someone in the head is interaction ..right?) and there can be more than 2 players around simultaneously it can be called an MMO. As with the RPG tag, again it does not exclude much.
Which basically, IMHO, naming in this case is, if not rather pointless, not exactly helpful when almost everything can claim 'MMO-hod'
i have always found it funny that many single player games are offering more and more sandbox elements (fallout 3, oblivion .... ) or MMO elements (shooters with levels and exp).
while MMORPGs now seem to be going backwards and are trying to become more and more singleplayer games with multiple users. where each user has their own private instance of the world, they don't have to rely on anyone but themselves and never ever have to interact with another player if they don't want to.
WoW started this trend and its made them a lot of money, SWTOR will probably be a huge money maker since again from everything that has come out its basically a single player game with multiple users and multiple instances.
i guess more people are looking for that single player RPG that never ends instead of a massive world ... to me thats just a shame.
the Evil Raider that outgears you and makes you cry for welfare epics on the forums.
I'm suprised you didn't mention Global Agenda in your discussion. I've been playing this game for the past week and the Woman and I love it. They market it as an RPG / Shooter / MMO Hybrid. They don't claim to be fully any of the three but taking what they think are the better parts of each.
I think the important thing to take away is that when you see a game that is a shooter, its a shooter. If its an RPG, its an RPG. If its a hybrid; you can't expect it to fully be either one but simply shares some characteristics of both.
Sure ok by design its LIKE an MMO but seriosuly its a single player game and thats where the differance is. Sadly MMO's arent MMO's anymore either is becoming more like a single player game with a chat box.
Just a really minor comment, possibly slightly out of topic...
If it missing the ROLE aspect it is also missing the PLAYING part as well. Roleplay or role-play is just one word, hyphenated possibly but still one word. Otherwise you are left with: PLAYING GAME. Now I am not an english language expert but I am pretty sure describing something as a 'playing game' does not qualify for good (or even proper?) english. I somehow don't think playing is the sort of adjective you put in front of game.
So basically, it is just a GAME
Great article. I too hope to see developers try new things with the MMO genre. A lot of MMO fans, especially on this site's forum, are quick to put down a game that shows signs of being anything other than a pure MMO. SW:TOR criticism is a perfect example. "Bah, it's like a single-player game!" Are you so certain that if a game looks like it's not going to follow the same formula as WoW it's going to be a bad game? That's limited thinking. It discourages innovation, and encourages more WoW copying.
To define MMO, I would go with the literal meaning of the words -- Massively Multiplayer Online. To me this means a lot of players (at least 100 or so) actively playing together simultaneously on the Internet. If you're in a lobby, you're not actually playing the game yet. If a lobby can make a game Massively Multiplayer, then Blizzard has been in the MMO business long before WoW with Battle.net. But no, obviously that's not an MMO. So I'm definitely not ready to lump a game like Borderlands which only lets you play with with a few other people at a time into the MMO genre.
Where the breaking down of and experimenting with the MMORPG genre gets problematic and causes the most strife is with the pricing. What happens when a developer makes an MMO that's really nothing more than a single-player game with a lobby, and still charges $15/mo for it? Even if it's a great game with awesome gameplay and graphics and everything, who wants to pay a monthly subscription fee for a single-player game experience? Microtransactions also tend to crop up when the MMO genre is being experimented with, and we all know the problems that can cause. Players will resist games that appear to offer less than other MMORPGs while still charging the same fees or more.
I would like to see developers do three things:
1. Be innovative with MMO games and try creating MMOGs in new ways
2. Don't get greedy with subscription fees and microtransactions
3. Be very clear about what the subscription fee pays for and/or be specific about what sort of microtransactions the game will have
The current crop of MMOs are missing crucial elements in single player gameplay that really should be part of the MMO experience.
One primary example - When I go on a quest to slay the big boss dragon, there's usually a compelling reason - it's terrorizing a town, stealing their virgins, eating their cattle, flaming their crops, etc. When I defeat the big boss dragon in a single player game, it stays dead and I get its entire treasure horde for myself. I don't have to keep going back to the well (so to speak) hoping that the sword of a thousand papercuts might drop and that I win the roll of the dice to keep it. Every villager in every neighboring town can know that I've defeated the big boss dragon and they cheer me as I walk by. The farmlands that were formerly being laid waste are now green. The castle of the country erects a statue of me next to the skull of the dragon. In other words - I've actually had a real, tangible, very visible affect on the world.
The complete opposite is true in WoW. Onyxia isn't really bothering anyone, and if she were - killing her wouldn't change anything. There aren't any towns being torched, she just lays in her lair waiting for people to come kill her. If I'm part of a group that kills Onyxia, no one outside of that group knows (or cares). I have a chance to roll on the 6 items that drop with all 25 other people that need/want those items. Depending on my luck, I may have to kill Onyxia 30, 40, or more times to get everything that I might want. She never goes away and I can keep killing her once a week til my keyboard breaks.
This is a dangerous trend going on in the mmo industry where soon you will be paying a monthly fee to play a single player rpg with a chatbox.
What happened to the "massive" part of mmorpg?
When did we settle for this instanced nonsense with limited social interaction? Some of my best mmo friends were made just wandering around an open gaming world and lending them a hand with a rather difficult mob, or hanging around someone camping a mob in eq1 and talking about similar interests, good times.
Another reminder that consoles are trying to enroach on PC territory. I don't support the idea, not one bit.
EDIT: Good read though, thanks.
you must have skipped sw last video because in there they did say there was going to be massive pvp
yes it could be instanced but instanced if you are thousand in an instance isnt a big issue lol
the instancing resentement come from the fact the average amount of player that can fit on one given map is so low
it can barelly be called a multiplayer game.and most try to make us swallow their title is a massive multi player
eve is a massive multiplayer and other title ,some used to be massive .title like wow .
other never have been massive but were cool anyway .title like guildwars
gamer only ask this if you brand your self as a morpg BE A MORPG.if you brand your self as a mmorpg then fine be it
that why gw have such a big rep .they never said they were mmorpg .they always said they were a corpg
some might argue its no big issue .but trust us it is a big issue
so when an article like this ask its question i got to say this
if all game say they are mmo ,then either there will be lot of lier or they will need to change the way
their game is because frankly ask any gamer and he ll tell you there are ton of mo
but there are not many mmo
Matata - I'm not talking about RPG as in each word. I'm talking about what we all know to be an RPG. Where you play a role and can customize your character beyond just looks. In most RPGs there is a story. This story is what is missing from Global Agenda. It is this story that gets you to play a fantasy role (as the hero, the thief, the jaded mage, ectra). Proper english has nothing to do with the spirit of a genre and I'm suprised you even brought it up.
Nevulus - I like instancing; when done right. The first time I encountered its widespread use was in EQ1 with some expansion where they started instancing specific dungeons. This allowed lots of people to group and do these dungeons. It was a way around having to add much more content. Before instancing, if another party was already playing the dungeon you wanted to play, you either went to another dungeon (more content), fought over the dungeon, played together, or anything else you could think of.
Now, games are just instancing everything. I enjoy dungeon instancing. I don't enjoy world instancing. The way around having to instance a world is to expand the content (harder) or to increase the spawn times (easy).
Battleaxe - How would you have an MMO implement this? If only 1 group could kill the dragon then there goes the game for the rest of us. More importantly, the hardcore players (minority) ruin the game for the casual players (majority) and we pay most of the developer fees.
I have seen games implement some form of influence bar. Doing something that saved the town then increases your influence and that in turn changes how the town people view you. What you did to get that higher influence is still available to the other thousands of players to do as well.
I have also seen games put in a rough player level to mob level reaction. A relativly low level character would get attacked by the mob where a higher level character makes the mob cower or even run. I like that as well.
MMO can't be a complete single player game because it is an MMO. It could borrow key aspects of single player games to become a better MMO though.
What exact;y do you mean by 'story'. According to the game devolepers:
"2155. From the ashes of the devastating Third Great War rose the Commonwealth, an oppressive world government determined to control the entire planet. The few remaining independent factions retaliate the only way they can, with elite teams of special operatives trained in advanced warfare tactics and equipped with high-tech weaponry. The future of humanity is their battleground, where knowledge is power, technology is a race, and everyone has a Global Agenda."
is the story or background behind the game. Or do you mean that it needs to be story driven? Which I do not see why is a requirement.
Anyway, back on topic, mmorpg.com has a list of criteria for listing games in their site. And they are as follows (and I quote):
Does it meet our requirements?
1. Make sure that the game isn't already on our list. We know that this sounds simple, but there are a lot of them and sometimes they get overlooked.
2. The game should have the capability to support at least 500 congruent users on a single server. This is not a reflection of the game's current subscriber count, but rather reflects the capabilities of a game's technology.
3. The game must include some form of common area where players can interact with one another inside of the persistent game world. This excludes lobby and chat room based interaction. Exceptions are made where logical (such as sports MMOs) that still fit within the spirit of what an MMO is.
4. The game must make use of persistent characters. This means that you should be able to log in after logging out and find your character as advanced as you left them (or more).
5. The game must contain some form of advancement.
And if this is anything to go by, there are not many you can exclude, apart for glaringly obvious cases. My point, basically, is that naming or categorisation of games in the end is not very helpful for the potential costumer. It is the nature of the beast I am afraid, a company can always argue without contradiction that their game is an MMO (or whatever else they want to call it) in virtue of how closely or not they want to stick to former paradigms set by past games.
@ battleaxe This is so true. I know it would be very hard to implement, but somehow ROLE-PLAYING makes an MMO less shallow.
Great graphics, dungeons, team etc do not make an immersing game. Many people, i hope, would appreciate a purpose. Right now MMO's are stats-farming games rather then role-playing. Of course, proper RPGs should not miss the thrill of finding new kewl armour, but the biggest thrill is when you can associate with your character and forget that the dragon can drop an epic.
Of course, some people would still play only for the stats, skipping all content, but looking at MMOs there would not be many.
The best example is Age of Conan, in tortage, you have a PURPOSE. It's highlighted with great graphics, dialogue and lively characters. After-Tortage AoC is just another stats-grind.
@ Madbonmber: I realise the obstacle, but players are striving for the roleplay, otherwise games would not evolve in that way. I could show a few ways to remedy that (mainly ripping off existing features) but it would take a bit too long. One thing to say though, is that ingame factions have to make up most of the motivation to kill such a dragon.
Pretty much what you said in your article is instant gratification. Borderlands is a game that can be brought up quite quickly, played with a close multiplayer group.When you start you are in the local area of each other. Plus what ever happened is logged in your computer when you leave. In a MMO Nine Toes is still hanging around waiting for someone else to kill him. You might be miles from each other and it might take 30 minutes to get your crap together to play. MMO have a large grind to them also. In a mission to kill Nine-toes, you have to kill x amount of mobs to get to nine-toes, that is part of the mission. You can go through them quite quickly with a group that knows how to play. In a MMO to go through the amount of mobs in the same way would take hours.
In a sense MMOs are very time consuming with little results. Games like Mass Effect 2 (awesome game BTW) Borderlands, Left 4 Deads, lets players break loose in a small amount of time, enjoy ourselves and we make a difference each time we log on.
Will this site embrace the inevitable convergence as almost everything becomes an MMO? Or will some bastion of Tolkien-esque arbitrariness define the genre as far as this site is concerned?
So you are saying if we like the "old" style MMOs we are being arbitrary ?? I can see what worth you place on others opinions who disagree with your own "Arbitrary" opinions.
Really learn to read. When someone puts a question mark at the end of their sentences it is a question and not a general opinion of their own. There really was no need to turn it into a personal attack.
This is a very interesting read and a really touchy subject nowadays. People will put up their pitch forks and axes to defend that fact that their game is indeed a mmorpg. Where is the line drawn between MMO and just a single player game with the option co-operating with other players? Is the fact that a game allows 4 people to join a "server" considered an MMO? I don't think the problem here is the "RPG" element but instead the definition of what is considered an MMO and how to make a game a MMO. When can you start making players pay a monthly subscription? Does having a monthly subscription mean the game is a MMORPG?
I believe developers are starting to push towards the RPG elements and straying away from the MMO element because people will define that game as "forcing players into groups" or "non-casual friendly". I really believe that something like SWTOR is in fact a single player game with the option of co-operation. Just because a game has a massive PvP does not mean it is a MMO, there has to be a balance between PvP and PvE. Hence why I believe games that are starting to go more sandbox are a breathe of fresh air and are in fact MMORPGs.
with the tittle it has to be said
MMORPG.com the MMO?
Meh, it's probably suck.
The "features" that you're implying MMO's have by definition are false assumptions based on your previous experience with MMO's. Borderlands could be an MMO simply by adding a persistent space that can serve as a lobby for players to meet up, trade, form parties, show off their gear and gather quests, and it would have no impact how long it would take to kill the mobs leading up to Nine Toes.
This is the problem with people's apprehension to the MMO moniker, they assume that in order to be an MMO they have to have some of these terrible qualities that some bad games set the precedent for.
All MMO refers to is the number of players, and some degree of a persistent online infrastructure.
Never. Even now most of MMOs are just multiplayer online games.
Where themepark games try to hide that they are copying WOW, games like Mortal Online and Darkfall make no attempt to hide their inspiration
______\m/_____
LordOfDarkDesire
I personally don't see how the genre can evolve when people want mmo's to stick to a strict set of guidelines. Most times a developer tries to do something different the mmo community starts an inquisition and pulls the idea apart all in the name of preserving "true mmo's".
I could care less about definitions and genres i just want to play games that are fun and entertaining. Of course everyone's definition of fun is different so its good to see smaller developers taking chances trying to create something original even if they don't meet such strict criteria.
RPG and FPS, the two genres don't really gell, in my opinion.
RPG is character advancement, telling your own story and building your dream.
FPS is all about the action and the buzz, the twitch, winning.
The twitch will drive those that don't like allout pvp and older gamers away as their reflexes will be hard pressed to compete with the young, we've already seen the posts in the pub. Gamer age averages will be going up as people mature. Older gamers usually have more money, more patience but less time too, we still like playing games though!
Maybe the current games mixing the genres are doomed to fail, because they try to appeal to two incompatible player groups.
I have one last thought, how do you "win" in an rpg, your story is still being written for as long as you play?
Many no doubt will absolutely disagree with me
F2P/P2P excellent thread.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/282517/F2P-An-Engineers-perspective.html
An interesting article, but one that fails to note a key point at this development crossroad:
This genre hybridization isn't being done for creative reasons, or to better serve the consumer. It is happening because console and single-player game makers want two things that their mmo-making brethren already have:
1) recurring revenue
2) an end to consumers physically owning their product (which will in turn lead to more of 1)
If all this co-mingling were being done in the name of making great new games, I'd be all for it. Sadly, the real motives are completely transparent. When game developers get back to designing great gameplay and great stories (instead of great new payment models), I'll start buying games again.
...
I think the term "MMORPG" no longer has its original meaning. The meaning it had when Anarchy Online, World of Warcraft,etc were the only MMORPG's was alot different than it is today. In those games there was a "world" that you could just hang out in. You did not even have to do anything to have fun. There were hangouts, and even parties(eg. dancing and drinking). I think the industry needs a new name for what many consider to be an actual MMORPG. Since it no longer embodies the traits of what many believe an "MMORPG" to hold. What the games of new are missing is a "persistent world". Bad integration of instancing has killed this totally. If a game is 100% instanced (eg. STO or AoC), for me it is a "MMORPG", but this term does not describe what games such as Anarchy Online or even World of Warcraft actually are; "MMOPRPG" is more fitting. Massively Multiplayer Online Persistent Role-Playing Game.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Science has never proven that what we see in front of us is in fact real.
I deleted my second post because it was
and out of place.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Science has never proven that what we see in front of us is in fact real.