I am only really interested in games that provide a relatively wide range of experiences, once you start cutting back on a games features, the number of possiblities for that game also decreases dramatically, i am not looking for that kind of a game O.o
I believe that reducing the scope would actually benefit MMOs. It could make the MMO more streamlined and focus all dev efforts where they want it. However, by doing this, they are narrowing their audience and reducing the potential customer base. In the GW2 example presented in the article, while I might enjoy running dungeons and quests, Lewis prefers PvP. Since I might do that on occasion, it would be beneficial for us to be playing the same game in order for me to provide him with a target. (I suck at PvP so that's pretty much the usual outcome) However, in a narrowed scope where Arenanet focused only on PvP, I simply wouldn't be playing at all. Several of the upcoming games are PvP-centric so I'll be skipping them. While this would benefit the core audience, the developer will have to rely on that same core audience to pay them enough to recover costs as well as persistently subscribing for continued game existence.
This is a genre built around frequent, meaningful community interaction. Unless your name happens to be World of Warcraft, chances are that most of your zones are dead, and thus don't create those frequent, meaningful community interactions. This is especially true of themeparks, since zones are designed to be obsolete after a certain level.
To that end, a smaller, more content-dense landmass would likely be more capable of providing a good MMO experience for any game without several million active players. Player interaction excels, dev time can be shifted towards improving combat and content quality, and costs are lower. And if this smaller landmass is full of secret dungeons and hidden loot, then that sense of exploration remains strong - if not stronger than most current MMOs. I believe the best approach would be to lengthen longevity and encourage repeat exploration by frequently dropping in new quests, dungeons, and items with only cryptic hints in the patch notes - or no warning at all.
They have tried limited scope. It's was called SWG and WAR. Both failed because that limited scope didn't draw the commercial numbers they needed. It's one reason that WoW has survived because the game designers saw the need to cater to more than 1 demographic. While I admit that open world pvp got the short end of the stick on most realms, big arenas like AV helped male that seem like less of a thing. Niche mmos bring niche crowds, ask MWO how good it is to cater to a niche audience.
Yes, I agree with the article 100%. Sometimes less is more. Mmos are about building mechanics that support the massive part. Building mechanics that segregate players into different parts of the "same game" doesn't support the massive part.
Talking about games where thousands of players exist simultaneously in a single instance and mechanics related to such games.
This is a genre built around frequent, meaningful community interaction. Unless your name happens to be World of Warcraft, chances are that most of your zones are dead, and thus don't create those frequent, meaningful community interactions. This is especially true of themeparks, since zones are designed to be obsolete after a certain level.
To that end, a smaller, more content-dense landmass would likely be more capable of providing a good MMO experience for any game without several million active players. Player interaction excels, dev time can be shifted towards improving combat and content quality, and costs are lower. And if this smaller landmass is full of secret dungeons and hidden loot, then that sense of exploration remains strong - if not stronger than most current MMOs. I believe the best approach would be to lengthen longevity and encourage repeat exploration by frequently dropping in new quests, dungeons, and items with only cryptic hints in the patch notes - or no warning at all.
I think I understand and I think I agree.
How the traditional MMO model currently is hundreds of developer/storytelling man hours are getting flushed away with the players at best just not being annoyed by it. The model needs to change.
It used to work because the progress was slower and as time went on new zones created, more new zones, then new players wanting to play with the vets so excelerated zones. However the problem is NEW MMOs decided to make theirs based off the existing model of an older MMO thus making tons of 'new' content that nobody gives a S about.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm not going to answer directly to the question but rather respond with an observation. The genre is in a bad shape right now and with no indication of getting better on the horizon. That's the reality i'm afraid no matter how many 'romantics' refuse to believe it. Imo what it needs, in order to steer away from becoming absolete, is a change in focus. If that change is the recent shift to crowfunded, more focused games from the big budget, AAA, all in one package titles, i do not know. Time will tell.
A smaller scope can represent an improved experience. It will need to provide superior experiences over their competitors, however. Premium brands of chocolate, like Lindt & Sprungli chocolates, are considerably better experiences than Hershey's.
But a restricted scope works only if the experience is superior to their competitors. If offered a 'restricted scope game', I would expect the experience to be better than similar experience available elsewhere. If the game is PVE, the PVE should be noticeably better; if the game is PVP, the PVP experience should be better.
The mantra for improvement is 'building on the shoulders of giants', not 'trimming from better games'.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
yes... I agree PvP and PvE should be kept apart with different rule sets completely and not co-existing together.
PvE 'arena style meaningingless PvP' however could remain in pve.
You still have the problem with balance nerfs. The ones playing the arenas will demand that which will enrage the PvEers.
PvE and PvP usually have different combat mechanics. If you for an instance have a trinity system you have totally different mechanics to fight mobs/bosses and other players. You can't taunt other players but the tank class more or less build on that and is balanced for that type of combat. Balancing a class both for trinity mechanics and good PvP just isn't possible, even if you just have arenas.
Just putting up an arena is easy work but it will suck unless you spend a lot of work balancing things, and that will mess with the PvEs balance. Unless of course you only allow people to fight others of the same class and groups with the exact same classes in.
Pokemon styled pet battles is fine though and same thing with players using vehicles just for the arena. Those you can balance perfectly without making the games main focus worse.
Of course you could have a game that have totally different stats and mechanics for PvE and PvP. Where hitpoints, skill and gear are hugely different and each class basically is 2 different classes based on if you PvE or PvP. That would work fine but it would also be loads of work to get right. Each type of gear would have 2 separate collection of stats or your character would have 1 PvE slot and 1 PvP for each type of equipment and PvP gear can't be used for PvE and the other way around. It wouldn't work in open world PvPvE still, but it would work in battlegrounds or large zones made for that type of PvP.
That needs a high budget AAA game though, the indie games barely have enough resources to make 1 of the styles good.
Then we would just have more mmo's with that mile wide inch deep feeling which the market is already saturated with. The amount of systems/mechanics isn't whats wrong with mmo's, it's lazy/uninspired developers with no flare for innovation.
The author convinced me of nothing because his examples were awful
GW2? Seriously,all i got there was instance into instance into more instancing.A role playing game with no housing,yep seems to hit the genre perfectly on the spot..../not.
CU...Crowfall again a couple games not doing a lot and what they do is usually cash shop game development.I should also mention that these are crowd funded,so they have no confidence in their own work or to get their own money.
LESS scope? I want MORE scope because we have yet to see one single developer give us the minimum expectations.Name one mmorpg with an ECO system and housing>>>NONE.That is two bare bones content ideas that should be in EVERY mmorpg and not to be considered some luxury content.
Reason is simple,not one single developer has the confidence to invest a lot of time and money to try and make a triple A mmorpg,all they want to do is sell us half assed effort.There has been a long standing mistake of rating very average games as triple A just because they are better than other crap.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
The author convinced me of nothing because his examples were awful
GW2? Seriously,all i got there was instance into instance into more instancing.A role playing game with no housing,yep seems to hit the genre perfectly on the spot..../not.
CU...Crowfall again a couple games not doing a lot and what they do is usually cash shop game development.I should also mention that these are crowd funded,so they have no confidence in their own work or to get their own money.
LESS scope? I want MORE scope because we have yet to see one single developer give us the minimum expectations.Name one mmorpg with an ECO system and housing>>>NONE.That is two bare bones content ideas that should be in EVERY mmorpg and not to be considered some luxury content.
Reason is simple,not one single developer has the confidence to invest a lot of time and money to try and make a triple A mmorpg,all they want to do is sell us half assed effort.There has been a long standing mistake of rating very average games as triple A just because they are better than other crap.
Have to disagree as I'm not looking to play games, but rather inhabit virtual worlds so the broader the number and variety of activities the better, at least in my view.
Perhaps, but perhaps you would have an even more immersive virtual world if people were not "queueing for Capture the Flag".
I think they key is that MMORPGs should STOP trying to be all things to all people.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Having a variety of activities to participate in is what drew me to MMOs in the first place. I want to explore, I want to craft, I want to build, I want to rp, I want to pvp.
If you focus on a single aspect, I will burn out on the game even faster and I likely will not sub to your game if you have a narrow scope.
I do wish that a concrete definition of what an MMORPG is had been established early on. Since now it is twisted into sorry pale forms of what it used to mean.
Having a variety of activities to participate in is what drew me to MMOs in the first place. I want to explore, I want to craft, I want to build, I want to rp, I want to pvp.
If you focus on a single aspect, I will burn out on the game even faster and I likely will not sub to your game if you have a narrow scope.
I do wish that a concrete definition of what an MMORPG is had been established early on. Since now it is twisted into sorry pale forms of what it used to mean.
I think there is a large amount of space between the "One Stop Shop" of an MMO that tries to be all things to all people and a "Single Aspect" MMORPG.
I think they key is to do as much as you can as long as you do it WELL.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
Have to disagree as I'm not looking to play games, but rather inhabit virtual worlds so the broader the number and variety of activities the better, at least in my view.
Perhaps, but perhaps you would have an even more immersive virtual world if people were not "queueing for Capture the Flag".
I think they key is that MMORPGs should STOP trying to be all things to all people.
I agree. Focusing on the basics, stay true to your genre (I mean scifi, fantasy, survival, even redneck rampage if someone wanted to go that far), and release a satisfying game, even if it only has a couple of months of content. Then add stuff to expand it out, and pull in more people and keep the already existing fan base happy.
CoH released with a level cap of 40, then expanded out from there raising the cap to 50 and adding zones and questlines. WoW released with a level cap of 50, but very quickly released a patch bringing it to 60 and opened up several zones. Doing so got people into the game, and before more than a handful reached the cap they had a higher level cap with plenty more to do.
Also, any game that wants to be truly successful needs to release to consoles either at launch or very quickly afterwards. WoW is the #1 MMORPG, but #2 only got to #2 after they released to consoles, and that is ESO.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
The author convinced me of nothing because his examples were awful
GW2? Seriously,all i got there was instance into instance into more instancing.A role playing game with no housing,yep seems to hit the genre perfectly on the spot..../not.
CU...Crowfall again a couple games not doing a lot and what they do is usually cash shop game development.I should also mention that these are crowd funded,so they have no confidence in their own work or to get their own money.
LESS scope? I want MORE scope because we have yet to see one single developer give us the minimum expectations.Name one mmorpg with an ECO system and housing>>>NONE.That is two bare bones content ideas that should be in EVERY mmorpg and not to be considered some luxury content.
Reason is simple,not one single developer has the confidence to invest a lot of time and money to try and make a triple A mmorpg,all they want to do is sell us half assed effort.There has been a long standing mistake of rating very average games as triple A just because they are better than other crap.
Wurm Online has full loot PvP that is the reason I never tried so I will take your word for its content.
And yet it also has pve server where there is no pvp. At least do your homework before you comment.
As for the op who props up pvp games that have less scope while forgetting there are also indie pve games in development.
If he wants to promote crowfall because the cheque has just cleared then do so without some write up about scope lol.
I'm also going to go with a "no" answer here and here is my rationale: Single player / Co-op games should be the titles that provide a focused experience for the player. I'm not saying that every single player game should be like this, but I am saying that this is the realm where a focused experience is better served.
MMORPG's, however, should provide a panoply of experiences. A good MMORGP should have a buffet of different experiences ranging from crafting, to raiding, to PVP to exploring... ect.
I just spent this entire week playing Mad Max and it contained two of these ingredients, but not all of them and yet it was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. However, if an MMORPG tried to provide an experience which was nothing more than, for example, clearing instanced camps and upgrading my car, then I would feel very cheated.
The morst important thing an MMORPG needs is people.
I think that's the main reason WoW does so well, is it has the population to handle the drop that comes a few months after every expansion.
MMORPGs are very much a game/social network hybrid, more so than other types of games. People leaving an MMORPG are more likely to have a cascade effect on other players.
And like a social network you want your friends to be on the same network. Not many people are lucky enough to have friends that like the exactly same thing they do. So a game that offers the variety or features that can interest a higher percentage of people in any group is more likely to succeed.
So while a PvP player doesn't care about RP, he he does want to do the PvE part of a game with his friend that does.
I don't believe a low budget studio can deliver truly good MMORPG. They may be able to offer one niche game play type that isn't being offered elsewhere, but I think those games will over all play closer to a lobby style non massive game.
You don't only want people to play your MMORPG, you want them online a lot, so when their in game friends login there are people in their circle to interact with. So if there is always something to do in the game, it has a wide variety of content, that can only be a good thing.
The problem with recent MMORPGs isn't the scope, it's the budget not being able to support the desired end product. The narrowness of scope in recent games is what is stopping me from getting invested.
Monetary investment isn't keeping people in games now. If you have a PvP focused game that doesn't require any investment to be the best, then it's easy to move on to something else.
I'm not interested in VR headsets, that is just a new kind of interface hardware. The game has to be a virtual reality in the first place. The broader the scope of a game the richer that reality becomes.
I expect that after 10 years all the good points of games like WoW and City of Heroes and any other MMORPG could be rolled up into one game, with new innovations rolled in for good measure.
It's kind of sad that the no. 1 MMORPG now is a version of a game released 12 years ago that hasn't been improved that much. Not to mention that instead of broadening the scope of the game to appeal to more people, they changed it so that it lost appeal to many of it's players. It's even sadder that this isn't likely to change as large companies don't seem to want to make the investment required and most indies don't have the capital. Star Citizen has the capital required to make a decent game, but the money seems to be going into advertising and features that have initial appeal, but won't help with player retention.
I guess we will have to wait for true AI so that the computer can develop quality MMORPGs with a broad scope. It seems to be beyond the capability of humans.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
While I agree with the general statement of the OP I think a good MMO should both have a PvE and PvP component, though not necessarily in the same environment. My problem with content bloat is the off theme stuff that ends up in some games.
Examples:
Pet Battles in World of Warcraft - IMHO pointless and tacky, if you want to play Pokemon, GO play Pokemon.
Star Citizen FPS module - In a game that has a core focus of ship to ship combat, does there really need to be a FPS component?
While those are the examples that come to mind, I'm sure I could come up with more. Are the above examples necessary? I don't believe so. Do they detract from core game development? Seems so.
I think it would benefit the pve crowd if pvp was removed from pve games. I don't think pvp games would benefit much though from that separation. The fact is, you have far more pve player in the west than you do pvp. You have many who like to do both and if they had to choose, would probably go with pve.
PVE games can survive and do well without PVP. I don't think the opposite would be true, at least in the west.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.
@Wizardry Did you read my column correctly? It quite clearly points out that Guild Wars 2 isn't a good example of an MMO with scope. It might have lots to do, but it does lots very average.
Comments
Hear me out.
This is a genre built around frequent, meaningful community interaction. Unless your name happens to be World of Warcraft, chances are that most of your zones are dead, and thus don't create those frequent, meaningful community interactions. This is especially true of themeparks, since zones are designed to be obsolete after a certain level.
To that end, a smaller, more content-dense landmass would likely be more capable of providing a good MMO experience for any game without several million active players. Player interaction excels, dev time can be shifted towards improving combat and content quality, and costs are lower. And if this smaller landmass is full of secret dungeons and hidden loot, then that sense of exploration remains strong - if not stronger than most current MMOs. I believe the best approach would be to lengthen longevity and encourage repeat exploration by frequently dropping in new quests, dungeons, and items with only cryptic hints in the patch notes - or no warning at all.
How the traditional MMO model currently is hundreds of developer/storytelling man hours are getting flushed away with the players at best just not being annoyed by it. The model needs to change.
It used to work because the progress was slower and as time went on new zones created, more new zones, then new players wanting to play with the vets so excelerated zones. However the problem is NEW MMOs decided to make theirs based off the existing model of an older MMO thus making tons of 'new' content that nobody gives a S about.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But a restricted scope works only if the experience is superior to their competitors. If offered a 'restricted scope game', I would expect the experience to be better than similar experience available elsewhere. If the game is PVE, the PVE should be noticeably better; if the game is PVP, the PVP experience should be better.
The mantra for improvement is 'building on the shoulders of giants', not 'trimming from better games'.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
I will remember that phrase, interesting.
PvE and PvP usually have different combat mechanics. If you for an instance have a trinity system you have totally different mechanics to fight mobs/bosses and other players. You can't taunt other players but the tank class more or less build on that and is balanced for that type of combat. Balancing a class both for trinity mechanics and good PvP just isn't possible, even if you just have arenas.
Just putting up an arena is easy work but it will suck unless you spend a lot of work balancing things, and that will mess with the PvEs balance. Unless of course you only allow people to fight others of the same class and groups with the exact same classes in.
Pokemon styled pet battles is fine though and same thing with players using vehicles just for the arena. Those you can balance perfectly without making the games main focus worse.
Of course you could have a game that have totally different stats and mechanics for PvE and PvP. Where hitpoints, skill and gear are hugely different and each class basically is 2 different classes based on if you PvE or PvP. That would work fine but it would also be loads of work to get right. Each type of gear would have 2 separate collection of stats or your character would have 1 PvE slot and 1 PvP for each type of equipment and PvP gear can't be used for PvE and the other way around. It wouldn't work in open world PvPvE still, but it would work in battlegrounds or large zones made for that type of PvP.
That needs a high budget AAA game though, the indie games barely have enough resources to make 1 of the styles good.
GW2? Seriously,all i got there was instance into instance into more instancing.A role playing game with no housing,yep seems to hit the genre perfectly on the spot..../not.
CU...Crowfall again a couple games not doing a lot and what they do is usually cash shop game development.I should also mention that these are crowd funded,so they have no confidence in their own work or to get their own money.
LESS scope? I want MORE scope because we have yet to see one single developer give us the minimum expectations.Name one mmorpg with an ECO system and housing>>>NONE.That is two bare bones content ideas that should be in EVERY mmorpg and not to be considered some luxury content.
Reason is simple,not one single developer has the confidence to invest a lot of time and money to try and make a triple A mmorpg,all they want to do is sell us half assed effort.There has been a long standing mistake of rating very average games as triple A just because they are better than other crap.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Does anything ever make you happy?
Perhaps, but perhaps you would have an even more immersive virtual world if people were not "queueing for Capture the Flag".
I think they key is that MMORPGs should STOP trying to be all things to all people.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
If you focus on a single aspect, I will burn out on the game even faster and I likely will not sub to your game if you have a narrow scope.
I do wish that a concrete definition of what an MMORPG is had been established early on. Since now it is twisted into sorry pale forms of what it used to mean.
I think they key is to do as much as you can as long as you do it WELL.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
CoH released with a level cap of 40, then expanded out from there raising the cap to 50 and adding zones and questlines. WoW released with a level cap of 50, but very quickly released a patch bringing it to 60 and opened up several zones. Doing so got people into the game, and before more than a handful reached the cap they had a higher level cap with plenty more to do.
Also, any game that wants to be truly successful needs to release to consoles either at launch or very quickly afterwards. WoW is the #1 MMORPG, but #2 only got to #2 after they released to consoles, and that is ESO.
The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!
I invite you to read the Crowfall FAQ to correct your uninformed view of the game. https://www.crowfall.com/en/faq/gameplay/
And yet it also has pve server where there is no pvp. At least do your homework before you comment. As for the op who props up pvp games that have less scope while forgetting there are also indie pve games in development. If he wants to promote crowfall because the cheque has just cleared then do so without some write up about scope lol.
MMORPG's, however, should provide a panoply of experiences. A good MMORGP should have a buffet of different experiences ranging from crafting, to raiding, to PVP to exploring... ect.
I just spent this entire week playing Mad Max and it contained two of these ingredients, but not all of them and yet it was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. However, if an MMORPG tried to provide an experience which was nothing more than, for example, clearing instanced camps and upgrading my car, then I would feel very cheated.
Examples:
Pet Battles in World of Warcraft - IMHO pointless and tacky, if you want to play Pokemon, GO play Pokemon.
Star Citizen FPS module - In a game that has a core focus of ship to ship combat, does there really need to be a FPS component?
While those are the examples that come to mind, I'm sure I could come up with more. Are the above examples necessary? I don't believe so. Do they detract from core game development? Seems so.
PVE games can survive and do well without PVP. I don't think the opposite would be true, at least in the west.
I'm not an IT Specialist, Game Developer, or Clairvoyant in real life, but like others on here, I play one on the internet.