Okay so by my clearly provocative title, I do not mean that the MMORPG genre is dead, I mean that the game world of most modern MMORPGs simply does not feel "alive." To me, this has been a major point of contention. Most MMORPGs are marketed as a product that lets the players "live in another world." They say things like "Welcome to the world of whatever" or "You're in our world now."
But then when you get to the fantastic world, you find a bunch of static NPCs with a chronic case of floating punctuation mark syndrom (FPMS, a devastating disease) and MOBs that either stand still, or wander around a 20 square foot area for eternity. The "world" is dead and soulless.
Now, to be fair, some developers do try to give their game a soul by adding things like cities, cultural landmarks, lore, etc. But it's usually not enough to offset the banal nature of quest-based gameplay, and even worse...developers are adding less and less as time goes on.
To illustrate this, UO had tons of cities, player built houses, tons of freedom for players to decorate things. Everquest had a very culturally unique and large city for EVERY race in the game (except half-elves, but humans had two cities) at RELEASE, and there were like 10 races or so at release. WoW had six cities at release, but they were still pretty nice. WAR and Rift both have 2...
It seems like many Developers just don't think that things that add "soul" to a game like cities, landmarks and player-created content are important anymore. Instead, they just focus on game mechanics, but I think this winds up being a losing strategy. I wondered for a time if my preference for games that more lifelike worlds/culture was a dying breed in the industry, but then I play a game like Portal 2 and I realize that players DO like games that have a lot of character.
Portal 2 has been successful and I think a large part of its success is the fact that the game just OOZES character and soul. At every single place in the game, the developers sell you on a unique world and culture they have created. I found myself eating it up, and after I played the game, I searched online for more Portal-esque things just because I hadn't gotten my fill of the unique character that the game presented.
Why can't MMORPGs embrace this kind of development? Do you think that developers should once again focus on giving their games character and spirit? Or do you think that the new trend of focusing on gameplay first and foremost is the right way to go?
Also...I know it may be tempting to turn this into a sandbox vs. theme park debate. But I don't really think it is. Theme park games can have just as much character as sandbox games and vice versa...just through different mechanisms.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Part of the problem is that when you give gamers a lot of freedom they find ways to:
-exploit it to break the game
-endlessly make phallic symbols (see minecraft and xsyon)
When you make the wolrd more dynamic they
-get frustrated when things are moved around/inaccessible (See Rift, people of forums really do complain that they can't turn in their missions because an area has been taken over by NPCs or the other faction. In other words, instead of getting organized and fighting back the otherwordly or hostile invasions they are mad because they cant bring back their 5 wolf pelts.)
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Okay so by my clearly provocative title, I do not mean that the MMORPG genre is dead, I mean that the game world of most modern MMORPGs simply does not feel "alive." To me, this has been a major point of contention. Most MMORPGs are marketed as a product that lets the players "live in another world." They say things like "Welcome to the world of whatever" or "You're in our world now."
But then when you get to the fantastic world, you find a bunch of static NPCs with a chronic case of floating punctuation mark syndrom (FPMS, a devastating disease) and MOBs that either stand still, or wander around a 20 square foot area for eternity. The "world" is dead and soulless.
Now, to be fair, some developers do try to give their game a soul by adding things like cities, cultural landmarks, lore, etc. But it's usually not enough to offset the banal nature of quest-based gameplay, and even worse...developers are adding less and less as time goes on.
To illustrate this, UO had tons of cities, player built houses, tons of freedom for players to decorate things. Everquest had a very culturally unique and large city for EVERY race in the game (except half-elves, but humans had two cities) at RELEASE, and there were like 10 races or so at release. WoW had six cities at release, but they were still pretty nice. WAR and Rift both have 2...
It seems like many Developers just don't think that things that add "soul" to a game like cities, landmarks and player-created content are important anymore. Instead, they just focus on game mechanics, but I think this winds up being a losing strategy. I wondered for a time if my preference for games that more lifelike worlds/culture was a dying breed in the industry, but then I play a game like Portal 2 and I realize that players DO like games that have a lot of character.
Portal 2 has been successful and I think a large part of its success is the fact that the game just OOZES character and soul. At every single place in the game, the developers sell you on a unique world and culture they have created. I found myself eating it up, and after I played the game, I searched online for more Portal-esque things just because I hadn't gotten my fill of the unique character that the game presented.
Why can't MMORPGs embrace this kind of development? Do you think that developers should once again focus on giving their games character and spirit? Or do you think that the new trend of focusing on gameplay first and foremost is the right way to go?
Also...I know it may be tempting to turn this into a sandbox vs. theme park debate. But I don't really think it is. Theme park games can have just as much character as sandbox games and vice versa...just through different mechanisms.
I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Part of the problem is that when you give gamers a lot of freedom they find ways to:
-exploit it to break the game
-endlessly make phallic symbols (see minecraft and xsyon)
When you make the wolrd more dynamic they
-get frustrated when things are moved around/inaccessible (See Rift, people of forums really do complain that they can't turn in their missions because an area has been taken over by NPCs or the other faction. In other words, instead of getting organized and fighting back the otherwordly or hostile invasions they are mad because they cant bring back their 5 wolf pelts.)
Well for the problems you mentioned in giving them freedom...
It's true, they will try to exploit stuff to break the game. But that's really a question of good design vs. poor design than freedom. Any game can be exploited, and it needs to be handled in the same way across any game. Ban/warn the exploiters, patch the exploit ASAP. Also, I don't think that players should have SO MUCH freedom that exploits are inevitable. A game can be designed to allow a lot of freedom while still being restrictive enough to prevent mass exploits. UO was a pretty good example of this.
As for the other problem concerning freedom you mention. Players also use their freedom to design towns, stores, unique houses, gardens, art, etc. It's true, there will be penises. I think it's an internet law that if someone can make a penis out of something, it will be made. But just because there will be penises does not mean we should not have freedom to be artistic. By this reasoning, the government should lock up pencils because someone could draw a penis with one.
As to your argument against the dynamic world...
Once again, I think this problem stems from the quest-based format of modern MMORPGs. Players only whine when a quest node isn't available because the game is designed to require quest nodes. A player can't really advance without doing quests. Also, this type of game breeds the "single-player" syndrome we see in many games nowadays. Players just go through quests like its a single player game, only teaming up if they absoultely have to.
I would prefer a game that was designed more around content that required interacting with the other players. I think the other players are really what differentiates MMORPGs from other games, but they almost seem like a vastly underutilized resource.
I have my hopes for GW2. It will have 5 starting cities at launch as well as smaller towns and outposts. It will be huge.
The dynamic events and better AI might also help, I am not sure about that part until I tried it of course but the game differs a lot from WAR and Rift.
TOR and WoDO might also feel more alive, we will have to see... But I think some games will turn the trend of small worlds with mobs placed out in a certain way and just standing around waiting to get killed.
I do not know, when was an MMORPG anything like you said it should be?
Ultima Online . I mean, it was't perfect and it's so dated now that I can't really get into it anymore, BUT it emphasized the virtual world way more than modern MMOs and felt more alive in general. Simple features like being able to open any box, or interact with the world in more ways such as moving objects around, decorating etc. goes a long way toward making the world feel more lifelike.
Single player games like Oblivion and Half Life 2 still go for features like this. In Oblivion, you can open just about any container in the game, and pick up and move any object. In Half Life 2, the physics engine allows you to interact with the world in a bunch of fun ways. But as a general rule, MMORPGs don't really include world interactivity features like this anymore.
The crazy thing is that MMORPGs stand to benefit from these features far more than single player games simply because other people can see or be affected by what you do.
It seems like many Developers just don't think that things that add "soul" to a game like cities, landmarks and player-created content are important anymore. Instead, they just focus on game mechanics, but I think this winds up being a losing strategy. I wondered for a time if my preference for games that more lifelike worlds/culture was a dying breed in the industry, but then I play a game like Portal 2 and I realize that players DO like games that have a lot of character.
There is a technical issue.
It is much harder to create player created content in a 3d environment than the 2d environment of UO.
You can have those things, if you want to go back to play a 2d game.
Let's say I can build a house anywhere.
In a 2d game, it takes up some resources, but not that much. It's just a picture of a house that has to be downloaded and displayed.
In a 3d game, that house has to be displayed as a 3d model to all players within range to see it. It has to load, because it's not part of the game that was already built and on the DVD you installed. And you have to reload the scene, in 3d, everytime there is a change.
And it gets more and more difficult the more you have to load.
Instead of one house, thousands of 3d houses....
I don't think anyone has cracked that nut yet so that it's doable on the same scale as UO in 3d.
The game would be logging in and waiting for everything to load so you could see all the changes.
By the time it was all loaded, you'd need to load again to see all the new changes...
Remembe the last time you installed an MMORPG?
It'd be kinda like that every time you played the game.
lol wow first of all that's not how it works... 2nd of all there are INDIE games currently in development that has the ability for Guilds to create whole cities let along a single house... You would have the models already as part of the client and then when a player creates a new house it would just load a new instance of that model... You wouldn't need to load the whole world again. AAA companies like Blizzard just don't see the need in adding features like that it's not that they can't!
It seems like many Developers just don't think that things that add "soul" to a game like cities, landmarks and player-created content are important anymore. Instead, they just focus on game mechanics, but I think this winds up being a losing strategy. I wondered for a time if my preference for games that more lifelike worlds/culture was a dying breed in the industry, but then I play a game like Portal 2 and I realize that players DO like games that have a lot of character.
There is a technical issue.
It is much harder to create player created content in a 3d environment than the 2d environment of UO.
You can have those things, if you want to go back to play a 2d game.
Let's say I can build a house anywhere.
In a 2d game, it takes up some resources, but not that much. It's just a picture of a house that has to be downloaded and displayed.
In a 3d game, that house has to be displayed as a 3d model to all players within range to see it. It has to load, because it's not part of the game that was already built and on the DVD you installed. And you have to reload the scene, in 3d, everytime there is a change.
And it gets more and more difficult the more you have to load.
Instead of one house, thousands of 3d houses....
I don't think anyone has cracked that nut yet so that it's doable on the same scale as UO in 3d.
The game would be logging in and waiting for everything to load so you could see all the changes.
By the time it was all loaded, you'd need to load again to see all the new changes...
Remembe the last time you installed an MMORPG?
It'd be kinda like that every time you played the game.
Except Dark Age of Camelot had personal and guild housing of different sizes and structures in a zone with trophies etc from rare kills you could put on the walls, furniture you could buy for the home etc.
No offense but your talk of technical limitations is limited at best.
Thirty years of gaming experience...not sure if I should be proud of that www.mmoexaminer.blogspot.com
Comments
I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Part of the problem is that when you give gamers a lot of freedom they find ways to:
-exploit it to break the game
-endlessly make phallic symbols (see minecraft and xsyon)
When you make the wolrd more dynamic they
-get frustrated when things are moved around/inaccessible (See Rift, people of forums really do complain that they can't turn in their missions because an area has been taken over by NPCs or the other faction. In other words, instead of getting organized and fighting back the otherwordly or hostile invasions they are mad because they cant bring back their 5 wolf pelts.)
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Archeage online brew
Remember Old School Ultima Online
Well for the problems you mentioned in giving them freedom...
It's true, they will try to exploit stuff to break the game. But that's really a question of good design vs. poor design than freedom. Any game can be exploited, and it needs to be handled in the same way across any game. Ban/warn the exploiters, patch the exploit ASAP. Also, I don't think that players should have SO MUCH freedom that exploits are inevitable. A game can be designed to allow a lot of freedom while still being restrictive enough to prevent mass exploits. UO was a pretty good example of this.
As for the other problem concerning freedom you mention. Players also use their freedom to design towns, stores, unique houses, gardens, art, etc. It's true, there will be penises. I think it's an internet law that if someone can make a penis out of something, it will be made. But just because there will be penises does not mean we should not have freedom to be artistic. By this reasoning, the government should lock up pencils because someone could draw a penis with one.
As to your argument against the dynamic world...
Once again, I think this problem stems from the quest-based format of modern MMORPGs. Players only whine when a quest node isn't available because the game is designed to require quest nodes. A player can't really advance without doing quests. Also, this type of game breeds the "single-player" syndrome we see in many games nowadays. Players just go through quests like its a single player game, only teaming up if they absoultely have to.
I would prefer a game that was designed more around content that required interacting with the other players. I think the other players are really what differentiates MMORPGs from other games, but they almost seem like a vastly underutilized resource.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I do not know, when was an MMORPG anything like you said it should be?
I have my hopes for GW2. It will have 5 starting cities at launch as well as smaller towns and outposts. It will be huge.
The dynamic events and better AI might also help, I am not sure about that part until I tried it of course but the game differs a lot from WAR and Rift.
TOR and WoDO might also feel more alive, we will have to see... But I think some games will turn the trend of small worlds with mobs placed out in a certain way and just standing around waiting to get killed.
Ultima Online
. I mean, it was't perfect and it's so dated now that I can't really get into it anymore, BUT it emphasized the virtual world way more than modern MMOs and felt more alive in general. Simple features like being able to open any box, or interact with the world in more ways such as moving objects around, decorating etc. goes a long way toward making the world feel more lifelike.
Single player games like Oblivion and Half Life 2 still go for features like this. In Oblivion, you can open just about any container in the game, and pick up and move any object. In Half Life 2, the physics engine allows you to interact with the world in a bunch of fun ways. But as a general rule, MMORPGs don't really include world interactivity features like this anymore.
The crazy thing is that MMORPGs stand to benefit from these features far more than single player games simply because other people can see or be affected by what you do.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
lol wow first of all that's not how it works... 2nd of all there are INDIE games currently in development that has the ability for Guilds to create whole cities let along a single house... You would have the models already as part of the client and then when a player creates a new house it would just load a new instance of that model... You wouldn't need to load the whole world again. AAA companies like Blizzard just don't see the need in adding features like that it's not that they can't!
Company Owner
MMO Interactive
Except Dark Age of Camelot had personal and guild housing of different sizes and structures in a zone with trophies etc from rare kills you could put on the walls, furniture you could buy for the home etc.
No offense but your talk of technical limitations is limited at best.
Thirty years of gaming experience...not sure if I should be proud of that
www.mmoexaminer.blogspot.com
I honestly didnt think this was possible until atari droped cryptic so they could focus on facebook type games.
Plus just to one up another compnay they spend more to clone instead of invent.
though i still belive an independent will appear and save the day.