MMORPG.COM News: Outside the Box: Column #2

Dana · February 2006

In the second part of a three part series, Monday columnist Nathan Knaack builds on last week's article about the history of MMORPGs to look at the them in the present tense. Next week, he'll look to the future.

Enter Ultima Online, one of the oldest MMORPGs, yet still renown to this day for its innovative features. Some successful features, ironically, have seldom been duplicated. Although Ultima Online wasnt 3D, it incorporated a great deal of player freedom along with a widely customizable world, including player housing and player vs. player combat. For these main reasons, the game saw widespread appeal and years of success, at least until EverQuest was released.

Originally created by a smaller company called Verant, EverQuest was subsequently acquired by Sony Online Entertainment. With its history already widely known, I wont go into much detail about EverQuest or other present day MMORPGs, suffice to say that while server technology, graphical capabilities, and other programming advances have been made, virtually nothing about how an MMORPG system is arranged has been changed since EverQuest. Pick a race, pick a class, and start grinding. Cut through the graphical interface and EverQuest boils down to a graphical game of Dungeons and Dragons, but with no storyline (quests, or chores, as I call them, do not constitute a storyline), very few gameplay options, and even less role-playing. Hack, cast, cure, advance.

You can read the full column here.

OneEyeRed · February 2006

Great part 2 of this article Nathan and exactly why I am so burnt out and sick of the MMORPG market all together. This is why I am so excited about Gods & Heroes: Rome Rising and if Perpetual really get's it right like I think they will, it will hopefully captivate me for a long time. Other than this game I really don't care about anything else in the MMo market anymore because as you basically stated it is nothing but constant rehash with no evolution.

fantasygirl · February 2006

I loved this article Nathan said what i've been thinking for quite some time now. Granted there are a few MmORPG's out there that might revamp or reinvent the system but as he said not many. I also wish that someone would make an MMORPG that involved actually using one's brain and not just going aroudn klling things or making weapons for points. But maybe that's just me...anyone else agree or disagree with what I siad? Then post someting inteeligent and don't bash me for it. If you do I either won't respond or just respond by saying someting nasty to you (which I'm sure you don't want.) Bottom line, don't flame me or bash my opiion; instead give evidence as to why you agree or disagree. Then I'll listen. ::::28::

nthnaoun · February 2006

You can't compare Halo sales against RPG sales. These are two different markets. RPG's are supposed to be centered around the ability to play a role in a game. PvP can play a big part of RPing if implemented correctly. The Chronicle has perfected this balance and will be a site to see. However, there are some games that can be just as successful without PvP. After all, RPers get more pleasure from going on an adventure and socializing then hunting each other down meaninglessly.

alkeo · February 2006

Bravo! Excellent analysis. So what's the solution? I'm looking forward to part 3 to see just what direction you think mmorpg's should go in.

The only mmorpg that kept my interest for months was SWG before the big NGE nerf. The skill system was flexible and crafting was fun. It was a big sandbox -- granted you had to make your own content but hey, that's where the rpg comes in. Then Sony decides that what everyone really needs isn't a sandbox but hack,slash, loot, repeat. The success of Warcraft is killing mmorpg's! I just haven't found anything I'm been really satisfied with since SWG. Eve-Online has lots of potential but too bad there is no ground based system to go with it.

Here's to hoping something engaging hits the mmorpg market soon.

Alkeo

sirluke · February 2006

Great article man, unfortunatelly i don't think the devs are going to change their habbits to soon. i for one am waiting for Vanguard ::::24::

Blitzen · February 2006

I could not have put it better. This topic has been one that my friends and I have discussed for years now. Being an avid Shadowrun PnP gamer and having been playing it since SR 2nd edition I have always wanted to a see a system similar to its gaming mechanics in that it is skill-based rather than the grinding linear level-base systems. The level-based systems are tired. I'm a Role-player, so when it comes to my characters I like to have gear not particularly for the stats, yes they have their perks but, I always aim to create the character I have in mind, and nothing is more frustrating than aquiring the perfect item that fits my characters persona only to have to aquire a new item in a few levels because the items effectiveness becomes nil. Shadowrun 4th edition just came out not to long ago, its my dream to see it translated on to the MMORPG format, though in reality I don't see it ever coming to light being that MicroSoft is in charge of the property. Outside of SR I see a tremendous opportunity for MMOG developers to make some serious advancements in the MMO genre. I mean not just skill-based, but in other designs as well, such as tactical MMOs in which you are in control of a small unit group similarly to that of Fallout Tactics, instead of single character archetype to give players some variety in the genre. What ever the case there needs to be some advancement or variety in the MMORPG market, its either that or the MMO genre may meet the same fate CRPGs did in the not too distant past, stagnation.

r4NGe · February 2006

Darkfall is coming to save us

Sovrath · February 2006

I have to say, though the columnist has many many good points, it so obviously his opinion that the strength of the article is lost on me.

It becomes apparent that he has an agenda... you know what he likes and what he doesn't. I feel that he could have framed his article in different language and been more effective.

I suppose that is my preference however as I prefer a more neutral writing style when it comes to stating what is right/wrong with a particular subject.

Dana · February 2006

Originally posted by Sovrath
I have to say, though the columnist has many many good points, it so obviously his opinion that the strength of the article is lost on me.It becomes apparent that he has an agenda... you know what he likes and what he doesn't. I feel that he could have framed his article in different language and been more effective.I suppose that is my preference however as I prefer a more neutral writing style when it comes to stating what is right/wrong with a particular subject.

It is a column, opinion is the idea.

Sovrath · February 2006

Yeah... I suppose you are correct.

In that case.. though the colomnist brings up some very valid points, I don't agree with how he said some of it nor do I agree with some of his points.

For instance... I don't think that it was "cowardice" on the part of the companies following EQ. Might not have been groundbreaking but they saw the business model, knew it worked and decided to see what they could do to expand on it. One could say we all do the same thing in our day to day lives. How many of you are cowards for going to college instead of being trailblazing and making your own business, or getting 40 hr a week jobs or buying into the whole "family" thing.

None. It is just a lifestyle choice that works. It does appeal to many. To some it doesn't.

Also, I don't agree with his entire assessment of WoW. Well.. he is correct in that they decided to streamline the current gameplay ideas and in that they did a very good job. However... the death penalty, though it might not be fun for him and perhaps for others, works very well for the type of peson who plays the game and enjoys it.

Not everyone is looking for a huge challenge... and I think that is what WoW offers... just some "fun time" in a Swords and Sorcery world. Its strengths are its weakensses but I believe that the individuals the game speaks to are the playes who will be playing it for years to come.

It's funny because some of his points are more than valid... though with some game companies trying different types of models they get criticism regardless.

guild wars and D&D online have gotten some scathing crticisms for being "differen't". Seems to me that you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. I suppose in the end people will just vote with their wallets and that will determine success or failure.

nsorens · February 2006

This article makes sense to me. I wrote almost the same thing as an introduction to a game pitch I did a few years ago. There's a place for grind games; clearly, they appeal to some people. But persistent-character games will evolve to the point where people who like the idea of a persistent character or a persistent world don't have to put up with boring grinds in order to get them.

I have some related posts from last year on the blog I used to maintain:

http://cometogaze.blogspot.com/2005/03/eq2-mmo-whipping-boy.html

http://cometogaze.blogspot.com/2005/04/why-you-want-casual-gamers.html

and another one, related to the MMO IP article:

http://cometogaze.blogspot.com/2005/04/does-ip-matter-for-mmos.html

Yeebo · February 2006

[quote]Originally posted by nsorens
[b]This article makes sense to me. I wrote almost the same thing as an introduction to a game pitch I did a few years ago. There's a place for grind games; clearly, they appeal to some people. But persistent-character games will evolve to the point where people who like the idea of a persistent character or a persistent world don't have to put up with boring grinds in order to get them.
I have some related posts from last year on the blog I used to maintain:
[url=http://cometogaze.blogspot.com/2005/03/eq2-mmo-whipping-boy.html]
[url=http://cometogaze.blogspot.com/2005/04/why-you-want-casual-gamers.html]
and another one, related to the MMO IP article:
[url=http://cometogaze.blogspot.com/2005/04/does-ip-matter-for-mmos.html]

[/b][/quote]

I actually enjoyed your blog posts more than the editorial that started this thread. I realize that the purpose of an editorial is to advance an opinion, but the editorial had too many questionable opinions presented as facts for my tastes. Usually editorials start with facts, and then use those to support an opinion rather than supporting an opinion with more opinions . . .

I will say I enjoyed the first article in the series quite a bit more. Looking forward to the last article regardless.

Sovrath · February 2006

Very well said Yeebo, thanks.

I'll read your blog posts nsorens because it has been a subject I have been thinking alot about lately.

Sovrath · February 2006

Nice job Nsorens...

I especially agree with you regarding EQ2 and how they are trying to make it more like Wow but don't seem to know how. I had that EXACT SAME THOUGHT after they made their last update.

Things are "easier" in some ways (and there have been some improvements) but it is not leaps and bounds better.

_Seeker · February 2006

The problem you are all forgeting is that he has an opinion and that he is making his comments based on that. He does not like the current game styles, either do i. Those who post against his comments are for the WoW and EQ game style. Those who post for him and against WoW/ EQ styles. Simple.

One day a developer will have the guts and the brains to implement something new that works. And they cant do that by trying to please 100, 90 or even 50% of the entire MMOG market. They should only listen to their communities that have intrest or are actually paying to play the game.

Even then they should stay true to their original vision. Because if you make a bad change to game dynamics, it can ruin your game.

I agree so much with this article.

I also agree with the blogs posted. Very well thought out and presented.

karter64 · February 2006

I'll take a stab at this opinion stuff.

While the author makes many valid points and while I don't flat out disagree with them I fail to see the possibility to implement many of them. For instance,

A story line that progresses by the actions of the players... Great idea, but which players?, The ones that play 30 hours a week?.. and where does that leave the player who only has time for a few hours a week, feeling left out and useless?

A world layout that is completely non directional... How many times will a new person like getting killed my mobs well above thier level before they figure out the right path to progress? Again a nice idea but implementation may create a problem. With a well laid out world plan, level directional barriers can look proper and not ruin the immersion. The trick is to get high levels to return to the low level areas to keep the new people from feeling isolated.

I won't comment much about PvP since I don't prefer to partake in it. Although I see it as a large part of the fanbase, I won't play a game that doesn't offer the option of non pvp play, mainly since I don't play enough to develop the skills needed to compete successfully in PvP.

Class vs skill system, doesn't matter much to me, as long as it has some sense to it. I don't expect to see a wizard swing a sword with the same skill as a warrior, nor a rogue cast spells the same level as a warlock. I think balance is important. A skill based system is great as long as the skill isn't how fast a player can hit a certain key sequence.

And a final item is the economy and crafting systems. I would have to agree with the author on this one, most of them really stink. I think they are more of an after thought than a real feature. I wouldn't think this would be one of the easiest things to do, but I am not a programmer.

Like others have said, I am looking forward to the third part to see what the author has to say about how to fix all the ills he mentions in the first two articles.

Redhobbit · February 2006

Originally posted by sirluke
Great article man, unfortunatelly i don't think the devs are going to change their habbits to soon. i for one am waiting for Vanguard

I really don't see Vanguard as helping that much. From everything I've read on the VG forums and dev comments, it really sounds like they are trying to perfect the EQ game style and adding some minor improvements here and there. It might be a really good game, but it doesn't look to play much different than the existing games, at least from what I've seen so far.

It seems to be heading towards a leveling and loot grind. They seem to be looking for ways for players to leave a mark on the world, but most of these seem to be little token changes. The are making crafting more interactive which is an improvement, but I wouldn't call it a change in game style. They are adding some diplomacy stuff, but I haven't really seen enough details to evaluate. Overall, it's the same combat, loot, craft combo that's been out for years.

If it has innovative new game play, I'd like to hear about it.

rigghawk · February 2006

Although I love the article series idea, and although the author has chosen a topic near and dear to my heart, I dont necessarily agree with his opinions. I think the MMORPG market is in many ways similar to the movie market. Some movies are made for pure escapist fun, and no one expects them to win any major awards or to achieve critical success, and yet millions enjoy them for what they are (WOW). Other movies are made simply to be different from all the rest or to identify with a very specific market (City of Heroes), and some try to be good at everying (mass market appeal, good story, clever special effects, ie Conan). They dont always achieve what they set out to do...

I think the author tends to oversimplify the market, and at where it is going today. I see a great diversity coming onto the market in the next 18 months, not only in the types of worlds, but also how characters are developed. I am encouraged.

I do agree heartily that the reason I've quit most games is the inevitable grind. One of the things I enjoyed about the original Asherons Call, was although there was some grinding involved, as the game developed the developers continually added quest content and the endgame kept getting exended up to higher and higher levels. The game grew. That game was also the best at building player relationships via the allegiance system of any MMORPG I've played before or since. (and I've played more than my fair share).

I also think that the tendency of games to increase character power exponentially as the levels increase is a mistake. There should be a steady progression, but one way to limit ganking and improve PVP would be to build a system where although higher level characters are better than lower levels, not exponentially so. So that a group of first level characters massed up would seriously threaten the toughest character in the game.

It is clear to me the author enjoys PVP (as I have in certain games) yet very few games have sucessfully integrated PVP as a realistic storyline element or as a meaningful strategic issue. (RF Online is attempting to do so). I have been ganked repeatedly in games like Lineage II and others on my first day in the game as a starter character. I have to tell you how unfun that was, and that's why lineage II got very few of my dollars. In general, I want PVP to be part of the storyline, meaningful to partake in, and that safe areas be provided for characters to grow in, or level up in (behind the battle lines). Anarchy Online has a meaningful PVP system and yet Lag is/was a huge issue for largescale battles. It is as far as I know going to be a problem for any game system to overcome.

In conclusion, I think this is a growing field, and that real competition is beginning to arise which will be to the benefit of players everywhere. I am hopeful that the developers understand we not only want choice, we want quality as well. I want all my games to have a great selection of looks for avatars, to incoporate a combat system that has some variety to it (more than 2 attack motions), a storyline driven quest system which evolves, and a meaningful PVP system if you can manage it please. Make me want to PVP. Give me a storyline driven, reason to take a side and fight for it.

Rigghawk

Hashman · February 2006

Everquest is seven years old this March, but is not light years apart from World of Warcraft. WoW appeals greatly to the iPod gamer (gets what they want right here, right now as often as they want) who typically spends just a few hours a week playing. The editorial is spot on, the mechanics and design has only been tweaked. Will we be calling games 7 years from now WoW clones? I hope not.

There are signs, okay small ones, that game designers are shifting to a more non-level-based sandbox type game. See how EVE is doing, very well thank you. Does it stand out because it is different, yes. We need more games, not clones of EVE, that are willing to take a risk, be bold. Nobody wants to go the way of UO:X, Mythica, Wish, Dragon Empires, (all EQ-clones?) fortune favours the brave.

The mmorpg market is absolutely bulging, it's like trying to fit 1,000 people into a jet, with some new kid on the block taking up all the air. Trouble is no-one wants to use another jet, they all seem to want to fit into the already full one. The scene is changing, but it will take time and if games that are more radical, or just plain different, don't prove popular then we may be faced with WoW-clones, sorry EQ-clones, for a good while yet. ::::16::

z80paranoia · February 2006

Good article. I agreed with almost every point.

Vinadil · February 2006

Perhaps the final dominance of WoW will actually fuel some changes in the MMO market. The fact is every business would love to deal with the problems of creating the most popular MMO ever worldwide, streaming in some 40 million dollars each month. Anyone who says that Blizzard did anything but succeed is just nuts.

But, that huge success has all but shut the door on cookie-cutter games in the future. Now the choice is: a) compete with WoW or b) make something new. The time for new things might just be forced on new developers, especially those wanting to capture some of the Western market.

The only thing that bugs me about articles like this one are when people try to say that Blizzard messed up. If only I could mess up my personal finances as badly as they did...

Sovrath · February 2006

Originally posted by _Seeker
The problem you are all forgeting is that he has an opinion and that he is making his comments based on that. He does not like the current game styles, either do i. Those who post against his comments are for the WoW and EQ game style. Those who post for him and against WoW/ EQ styles. Simple.
One day a developer will have the guts and the brains to implement something new that works. And they cant do that by trying to please 100, 90 or even 50% of the entire MMOG market. They should only listen to their communities that have intrest or are actually paying to play the game.
Even then they should stay true to their original vision. Because if you make a bad change to game dynamics, it can ruin your game.
I agree so much with this article.
I also agree with the blogs posted. Very well thought out and presented.

Actually seeker I think we know it is his opinion.. there is no issue there nor is there really any disagreement. And though I think that his writing is well done, it's the "how" he is saying it that is rubbing people the wrong way.

Other than that there are some real issues there. The problem is that it is expensive to develop these games.

Any game company that wants to try to enter the market (or any established company with a new game idea) is going to be understandably reticent to make any elaborate experiments in game design for the fundamental reason that it can be too expensive.

Even more so, if they lose money it might not make their stock holders very happy. Remember... it is the job of a company to make their stock holders money. Sort of the contract that the stock holders have "we will give you money but we are doing it because we expect you to bring a satisfactory return on our investment".

So, it's a double edged sword. Being publicly traded is good in some ways because you can get large amounts of capital for research and development but make one poor decision in judgment and you could blow it.

flamenca · February 2006

I read your article Nathan and I think you hit some very good points and raised some good questions.

When I think about the MMORPG I think about groups. Which groups are playing? I'm guessing there is diversity but I'm thinking it still is mainly the younger crowd. If the developers are only going to cater to the majority crowd then many people are being left out. I think there is a huge market in the older group of players.

While reading your article I found I shared some of the same thoughts regarding the way things are set up in a game. The linear description you talked about insured we "keep moving". It's as if we think there is somewhere to go and we have to get there fast! I'd like it if we developed a community in one area. I always get this feeling in the games when I find an area I like that I want to "live" there...move in, so to speak. (ya, wierd I know)

Personally, I would like a slower paced game that was a bit more intricate. Something that didn't require we keep going somewhere else.

Graphics are all important to me...I love exploring and I'm awed by what technology can offer! I am simply amazed at some of the things I've seen. I enjoy the experience of being inside the game.

I hope that the industry does start thinking "outside the box" and expanding the conversations in regards to online games.

Thanks for sharing your article.

::::01::

FILAMENT · February 2006

Well re identified the problem... Now how are we going to find a solution?

flamenca · February 2006

Originally posted by FILAMENT
Well re identified the problem... Now how are we going to find a solution?

well, let's say we pack a lunch, hop on the Airplane, Zepplin, Stagecoach, Ship, or any other means of transportation, (please, anything other than a simple portal), find a nice spot by the water so we can hear the waves and...let's have a group meeting!

There is so much lost beauty in the games I've seen....so much that goes unnoticed and unused! So much beauty!

Is it ok to use beauty and onlinegames in the same sentence here?

Howdy, Stranger!

MMORPG.COM News: Outside the Box: Column #2

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

MMORPG.COM News: Outside the Box: Column #2

Comments