You forgot sandbox games also fit into the RPG genre too. Think about SWG (at start) and EVE online...you are thrown into a game with just a few quests but a whole universe to modify, socialize, adventure, etc.
Originally posted by rentantilus ...However, in MMORPGs, you really can't tailor situations to that extent. When I reach point (X) in EverQuest 2, I'm probably nothing like the kind of character or in nearly the same situation as a cinematic scene would require. What if I'm an elf instead of a human for a scene that involves only humans? What if I'm 50th level and the scene involves me fleeing from a couple of goblins? What if I'm a man and the scene calls for a woman?
Naturally, the first response most people have is to make your cut scenes use existing geometry (just change camera angles around) to setup the cut scene, but that's only a partial solution. What about dialogue, gameplay effects, and storyline alterations? Are you expecting a development studio to hand-craft a few dozen cut scenes throughout their game for every single race/class/gender/level combination?
But all hope is not lost for the avid role-player in the realm of MMORPGs. The ball has just been thrown into our court instead of left to developers already swamped with having to create mountains of artwork, content, and code. ...
What MMORPG developers need to do more of is provide their customers with enough options, gameplay mechanics, and opportunities to role-play. Think back to the open-ended skill systems of Ultima Online and Eve Online; these games encourage role-playing through their diversity of character progression. ...
Great article, by the way!
rentantilus, You make an excellent point here about cut-scenes, but I wonder if 3d and AI technology isn't comming close to closing the gap to making up for this. I can see a general script at certain points and then let simple tags take some of the customization into it. After all, the age/race/sex/class are all things that are tags to game that the script can take into account. Games like Oblivion and Darkfall show that in single player environments tose cut-scenes can be interactive enough to engage most to some degree or another.. so I guess I am agreeing with Cari in her assertion that it is possible at this point.
I have to say that my experience is that the ball for RPing has always been in the players court. No matter how epic or engaging a story a GM(or game developer) can make, its up to the players to really engage the world and create the level of RPing desired. That said, the Devs in MMOs have the challenge of creating the history and mechanics to allow a level of freedom that allows players to really embrace and RP within the world aorund them. The real balancing act there is creating immersive story and history without taking too much choice from the player. I am sure its not as easy as those of us on the other side would wish it.
I think that point leans into your examples of UO and EVE as mechanics leading to RPing. Again, the story has to back those mechanics. With UO, the history is there, but I always found the progression of the world story to be somewhat lacking, and the additional mechanics(PvP rules for example) often forced people away from a world they always loved in single player world. EVE suffers a different issue. The world is stunning, the players in much control of it, down to being able to create "quests" for other players, but the time only skill progression is not for everyone(after all, whats the point in killing those pirates when the gain is ONLY nominal salvage returns). Possible potential there, but just not quite right(in my opinion, I am sure others will disagree).
In any event, I think Cari has the point. The ultimate MMORPG just hasn't revealed itself yet. I think the key here is in great deal a level of technology. The more advanced we get in graphical tech(I think the visual aspects are one of the big keys to immersion) and especially AI, the closer we can get to immersion and therefore promoting RPing. I think that the skills/leveling mechanics are not anywhere near the most important point in making something RP-able... its how engaged you make your players feel with each other and thier world.
I am not sure I see anything in the future yet that will grant that.. but I keep hoping.
I am pretty much a hardcore role player. I read up on the world I am visiting, then make a character to fit into that world, giving them thier own history and personality. In the past I have played both good guys and bad guys. My characters have often make choices different than those I would make, sometimes to the detriment of thier progress, because it was what they would do. Over the years I can decided that, in the spirit of good will towards role players, I will no longer play bad guys. My reasons may, in part, be found below.
I have been in the MMORPG community since UO Alpha and have Beta tested and played probably half or more of the Active games on the list, plus am in five Beta's now. That said, I think I know something about the MMORPG world.
95% of gamers do not, nor will they ever, role play for more than a few minutes at a time. (If they Ever do)
Of the 5% who are left, less than 30% play "good guys". Or neutral at least.
That leaves 70% playing "assholes by design", of some sort. Some of them actually do a decent job, but generally: Wham, right in the kisser, brute force gankers rule of justification, "I'm role playing, suck it up".
My best guess is that there are around 30% of the "role play community" who are "rule lawyers", "god modders", or "I am the exception" players, (read Paladins, Drow, etc.. when it is not within the world lore and sometimes not even possible!) giving the community black eyes. Generally making Everyone mad with thier lameness.
So that leaves you with, what?, ~ 1% of the player populous who role play and give other players a good experience? And that is the key, Other players. MMORPG
No wonder we are so "beloved" and thought of as whiners. If 95% of any population thinks you are lame or get mad at you, you are history, in the social sense. Guess who the DEV usually are? ... that's right, part of the 95%....
Question: Why would DEVs waste thier man hours making role playing content for such a small "whiny" minority?
Answer: They haven't and they won't anytime soon. Lest you the game player forgets, it's about making a buck. There is no altruism at work here.
So, in conclusion, make your role play when and where you can yourself. I do, even in WoW.
Let me tell you that is not easy. It was a broken stategy game with a horrid plot line, half baked mechanics, and then they morphed it into a massive version of itself with even more brokem lore.
I mean, look at character creation, the Elves lost their Immortality? Right? Per the Lore, yes, yet, like ALL the rest of the world, player AND NPCs, they are still serially immortal. lol.
Did they maybe mean Invulnerable? I doubt it. It's just broken lore. And it get's worse from there...
So, why do I play? Because my wife plays and it is fun because I make it fun. What more can you ask of a Game?
Good article, too true, too true. I was looking forward to DDO because I thought it would be the game that told a story and the player lived it... however, it was more quest grind, etc.
Every MMO that's on the horizon claims they're doing something to fix this problem, usually. When the game comes out, you find it's little more than a different slant at the same goal, mob grind. Hopefully one day someone will find a way to make a game story feel more important than the grind yet keep it challenging enough that folks want to continue playing it like you were with CoH and a lot of people are with WoW.
Yes! That's exactly how I feel. I want content that draws me in, makes me forget about the grind, and I really don't care how it's done. Be creative, do whatever it takes, but convince me I'm something more than a voracious, insatiable, xp grinder. I've only come close to that in City of Heroes/Villains, and even that formula isn't perfect, but if developers build off of that concept, make it richer, fuller, I think we'll all start seeing games worth spending an extra $15/month on after initial purchase.
There's a few games in the making that appear to have interesting philosophies about such things. Hero's Journey being a prime example, and perhaps to a lesser extent; Vanguard.
I have to admit, that I've been playing a little MxO lately, and while it's similar to CoH, they've captured the feel and atmosphere of the Matrix very well. Very easy to immerse and RP in that game. Also, the community building tools and the characters in SWG are what still pull me back to that game constantly, despite the poor state of the game at present.
A MMOrpg and a RPG doesn't follow exactly the same rules.
Everquest, WoW or CoH/CoV qualifie as RPGs as much as Diablo did IMO(actually, CoH/CoV are slightly more RPG-like than Diablo). But the basic fact is, NO MMO company ever made RPGs before. Well, you can says Blizzard made Diablo, but is that really a RPG? You can say Square Enix made FF, but that is a different style and Square lacks on soooo many aspects, I am still angry to have buyed FFXI and never been able to play it while been able to waste it, it was about $80 cnd down the drain and nothing to play.
It all depens on how you understand the term RPG I guess.
I consider Eve-Online a very roleplay friendly game. Because it makes most behaviour into roleplay naturally. Maybe thats more like a "roleplay-light" then real roleplay D&D style, but I personally prefer it this way, having experience with both.
"There needs to be a game where, 1) there are no preprogrammed quests. The quests should be live, real time, whatever you want to call them, and run by gamemasters. Maybe quest isn't even the right word for it. I'll go with event for lack of a better word. Sometimes the events could be as simple as electing a new mayor of your town or something like that. It might be a raid on an orc camp or it might be defending the town from a massive invasion. Whatever it is should have a worldly impact based on the outcome."
Ryzom.
I just experienced such an event. An enraged kitin (large insect-like monster) attacked an outpost while two homins watched, cheering it on. As the event unfolded, it was revealed that those two were controlling the kitin somehow. Ulyros, a Fyros (playable race) investigator, came with a large number of players to try to defeat the kitin. He questioned the two who were controlling it - Gilo and Gaty. They said something about kitin larva making it all work, and elders being reluctant to use "it" because of rot. So we started attacking the kitin with Rot spells, and it finally died. Shocked, Gilo and Gaty teleported away. But by then, it seemed whatever they'd used to control the kitin might be related to the Goo, a cancerous substance that has long been consuming parts of Atys (the living planet Ryzom takes place on) and was recently used to assasinate Governor Stil Wyler of the Trykers (another playable race). Because of that, the Trykers recently held elections to choose a new governor. On each shard, the outcome of the election was different - on Arispotle (the English shard, which is the one I play on) the election was tied between two of the candidates, so they ended up with a governess and a deputy governor.
Ryzom supposedly has the worst quest system of any game. The missions are blatantly "kill X of X animal" and such, with no ties to the story. There are only a few more complex quest-like missions called rites. This is because the missions are only for increasing one's fame with a tribe, race, or faction. The game's real content is in its live events. It has often been compared to pre-CU/NGE SWG, as a "sandbox" game.
----------- In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on August 13, 2008.
two words before u go do research again... Guild and Wars the worlds greatest mmorpg that does a perfect job at telling its story with over 1 million people playing it well at one point or another..... god and theres no monthly fee and even those with monthly fee's do a good job at telling its story if you do the bloody quests god...
RPG means different things to different people. This guy seems to think RPG means storyline, but that's not always the case. Some people think RPG means you play a role in the party, and your role must perform certain tasks, like healing or taking damage. Some people think the RPG comes from the storyline that the characters create themselves, when they 'role play' as their actual avatar in the game world, and speak like the character would speak, and create their own history/story of their own character.
Obviously this guy hasn't played EQ2, that game is pure lore, so much of it, the quests are full of storyline, and it has the voice overs that he was looking for. FFXI has the cutscenes that bring the story to life, as well as Guild Wars with cutscenes and voices. WoW is the exception, it lacks in game story (like 10 bosses in MC and only 1 with lore behind it).
It seems like this article guy doesn't know what he's talking about and has little experience in MMOs. Sounds like he's only played WoW and CoH, which do lack storyline, but there are other great MMOs out there.
While the analyzation of the issue (MMORPGs aren't RPGs at all, and in effect "chatrooms with a minigame attached"), the idea of making a "real" RPG MMOish is 110% utopia.
Play 3-4 rounds of Pen&Paper RPG, play a few single-playre computer-RPGs, then play 1-2 MMORPGs, and you know why. It's not possible, simple as that. MMORPGs should not be named that way, but there will never be MMORPGs, either :P
I am one that believes that there is plenty of Lore and stories in most mmorpg's out there . That it is the players that hurry scurry and move so fast they ignore the story. In my opinion, it is the players responsability to immerse themselves in the game. Players do not do this for the most part, and I believe it is the players that took the RPG out.
So the games tend to turn into pretty chat rooms with lots of neat colors.
Players cant stop talking or asking questions. "Where is the local bank?" Instead of just looking around and trying to find it, and asking people in /say.
There are so many reasons that RPG is not around anymore. But I blame the players, not the developers.
As I watch mmorpg evolve I think that there are two broad categories of player that exist on a continuum of sorts though I am not sure if these characteristics are mutually exclusive. At the one end there are people who want emmersiveness. These folks are open to innovation, change, and are willing to try things and adapt. On the other end are people who can grasp a system and they learn to make the most of it. These folks tend to be less innovative and more annoyed than excited at change. Once a system works they will figure out all the nooks and crannies and optimize their own performance. These are the folks that can still get off on leveling for levelings sake or running raids with very predictable class requirements and concommitant predictable outcomes. These folks tend to be competitively oriented while the first group prefers the excitement of adventure and depth. The first group consists of pioneers. The second group are the folks that move in on the pioneers after the frontier has been fully explored.
I see these patterns in many human endeavours actually.
So game designs have been generated that work to provide some new experience and for a while the pioneers are happy then the competitors move in and like a bunch of people all copying the same house design that the competitive builders have built in suburb designs that they have copied in urban designs that have also been copied and the pioneers move out to the jeers and catcalls of those who remain. So Everquest exists, as does wow and All the other games. You get an idea and you milk it for all its worth.
The interesting thing is that new ideas never start with the competitive energy really. They start with the dreamers and the pioneers. By definition this is so.
So in mmrpg the pioneers want something different, more emmersive and with more depth. And some companies try to make this happen and to that I say "Yeah Baby!" I want to see the new stuff and I long for that emmersive experience that also provides me with continual growth and changing citrcumstances within the game that is what role playing is really about. So I confess to beign a pioneer type. I have left many friends in other games who simply do not like that. There is a large market based on the repetitive competitive players. Fine. But NEW markets are not generated in the halls of sameville. They come from the frontier. The explorers of the Frontier create the new opportunities and can build markets where none existed. Lots of small companies consist of such folks and smart large companies hire such pioneers and give them a budget and let them dream. They know that R and D is the source of the future.
As to getting RPG into mmrpg, I fully believe that in my lifetime there will be mmrpg that are compelling in their depth and their storyllines and that players will be the "cast" that the story is based upon. The drive in these games will be the story...the story of each individual as well as the overstory of the world and all of its realms and kingdoms.
I read the information on the The Paradise Project and I try to stay abreast of the other innovative game ideas out there. Some commonalities for the new games that are trying to build rpg:
1. a deep role for player associations. 2. a way of giving players control over things 3. something greater or more compelling than a back story to drive the unfolding epic. 4. Game progression that is not based on leveling
Some things that seem to inhibit or interfere with emmersive rpg:
1. leveling and item centric games 2. guilds in their present form (glorifed chat rooms that allow breaks in emmersiveness) 3. lack of chance (too much predictablility) 4. lack of player character roles. 5. The commonaility of the end game experience (everyone is above average and uber)
Games like SWG and EVE are interesting in their open sandbox approach and for players that are dedicated hard core gamers such environments can become extremely emmersive if you have the time and inclination. But soon enough the hardcore players become separated from the rest. Ultimately such a huge discrepency is a problem more than it is a reward for the hardcore among us. It results in the community diffusing away from itself and for sameville to set in.
I think that developing the role of player associations is one critical improvement to look for in new games. Increasing the number of player associations that a player can belong to simultaneously, giving player associations specific and storyline driven roles in game and vastly expanding the functional roles of the player associations are three improvements that would enhance emmersiveness. I do not favour an entirely open sandbox. I want the devs to compel us with an unfolding story of epic proportions and to create an ebb and flow of events. This can happen in the open sand box but it is really pretty rare.
To illustrate, your player might be born in a village in a region of a kingdom. The village, the region and kingdom all have in common that they are player associations and they are linked to geographical areas. Each has a leader and a certain set of offices that players themselves might establish. The leader of a village could be responsible for determining the tasks, jobs and quests for his community and also for relationships between other villages and the ruling region. The player association leaders would also control trade.
There would also be action oriented player associations. Professional guilds that exist for a specific purpose. The player could join the Freeport Militia, the Rangers of Kelethin, or become a member of the Local Thieves Guild. Only in the future games each group would be run by a player leader who would in turn manage tasks, jobs, quests, open pathways to training, establish alliances and so on. The Rangers could agree to aid the local city state in defense of the realm.
Leaders would be empowered in this hypothetical game to do a great many things. The leaders would turn over frequently and the means by which this owuld occur might vary from combat to lottery to voting or by appointment. But leaders would be be guided by game developers in their choices. Game developers would affect the storyline by controlling the menus and choices that the player leaders have. So the troll villages might log in one day to hear the ramblings of a wild eyed shaman screaming about the vision she had ...one where the elves rose up to drive them off the land. The leaders would find a new set of choices in their menu of tasks. Choices to raid and pillage the elves and options to ally with other village where none existed before. Player leaders would sometimes have options in terms of what, who with and how much but sometimes they would be compelled. This in turn would drive the gameplay of the players in the player associations.
If you took any of our present standard games...Everquest, EQ2, WoW, or any other... and somehow you could add such player associations and that depth of relationship and responsibility then there would be an increase in emmersiveness. Offices in player associations would mean more. It would also open the door to storyline driven pvp. It wpould create purpose.
I think that some of the newer games are going to try to do such things. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
Karsk, what you're describing is something that game design theorists (and even philosophers) have been trying for many years to understand.
The most common way of describing this schism in gaming terms is "gameplay vs. story." I think of it more as "game vs. world," while the theorists prefer to say "ludism vs. narrativism," but it's the same thing.
Personally, I think this split is a lot bigger than just MMORPGs or game design generally. In writing The Two Cultures some 50 years ago, C.P. Snow observed some striking differences between how scientists look at the world versus how people with a more literary/humanities perspective regard themselves and the world. In particular, Snow noted how these two groups regard each other's outlook as incomprehensible and without value. (Sound familiar?)
But even that, IMO, misses the real distinction. I think it goes deeper, all the way to innate human personality styles. Some people are naturally more comfortable with the concrete, the specific, the competitive, the well-defined. Others are equally drawn to the abstract, the general, the cooperative, the internal. Doesn't that capture the distinction between gameplay (concrete rules for accomplishing defined goals) and storyplay (freedom to create and explore one's own stories)?
Although he has since updated it (in his must-have book, Designing Virtual Worlds), Richard Bartle originally described four types of gamers: Killers, Achievers, Explorers, and Socializers. While he frames the four types in different terms, I think if you read his descriptions of them (at the link below), you'll find as I did that the Killers and Achievers sound very much like concrete, gameplay-oriented gamers, while the Explorers and Socializers sound equally like abstract, story/world-oriented gamers.
Consider what this means for how current MMORPGs are designed. Most of these games are weighted heavily toward bringing in Achievers. The vast majority of game features are about accumulating stuff -- levels, loot drops, money, rank, badges, etc. -- through highly competitive, zero-sum gameplay. Naturally, Achievers (and a lot of gamers are Achievers) find these games satisfying. They may complain about specific features, but that's usually just to demand that they be even more competitive and offer greater rewards with less uncertainty. Killers (when they're allowed to play) like these things, too, though they're less motivated by collecting stuff than by the satisfaction of manipulating the gameplay of other players.
But what about the Explorers and Socializers? For gamers who naturally have these approaches to gameplay, whose fun comes through discovery and character interaction, the kudzu-like proliferation of Achiever-oriented, gameplay-focused MMORPGs is just painful. Instead of being welcomed into the game world through features that let them explore the social and physical nature of the game's constructed reality, Explorers and Socializers are basically told that their worldviews are worthless. By making every feature about competitive accumulating, Socializers and Explorers are implicitly told that if they don't like it, there's something wrong with them and they should go play something else.
If only there were something else! Even games like Seed don't quite get it -- sure, they don't have combat, but they're still highly competitive; they're just a PvP struggle for scarce resources in a social arena. That's a step in the right direction (as far as Explorers and Socializers are concerned), but it's not a complete answer to the Achiever games.
What's still needed is a developer who grasps that players are different, that not every gamer likes the same things. That a MMORPG's features ought to be designed to support actual player styles, rather than dreaming up arbitrary gameplay mechanics and expecting every kind of gamer to enjoy them. That the most satisfying game for a broad mix of gamers would be one that balances gameplay and narrative to the benefit of both.
A complete MMORPG would strive not only to offer exciting gameplay for the Achievers, but to set that gameplay within a deep, rich, open gameworld for the Explorers and the Socializers and integrate all these playstyles to create a coherent whole game. It would offer all players the organized freedom to define their own characters through story and discovery without having to "level up" or become "uber" or copy the class template of every other player to be considered fun.
In short, we need some developer to step up and seriously, consciously build a place that balances game and world, and to keep game and world features balanced in that place throughout its lifespan. Until then, MMORPGs will continue to fail to be as interesting as they should and could be. Yes, by the standards of the past, WoW is successful... but who says six million subscribers is the best we can do if we open up these games to more kinds of gamers?
MMORPGs can be designed to offer both gameplay and story in equal measure. I'm looking forward to playing those games, and I don't think I'm alone.
--Flatfingers
With respect to games, here are some links related to this subject that you might find interesting. Enjoy!
I think the writer of the article was largely correct.
However, I think that there is one game that wouldn't necessarily fit the MMO's typical definition but emerged to offer a great blend of the best of the MMO and solo CRPG experience.
That game is Neverwinter Nights.
You can have a DM run an adventure very much like the fond old PnP RPG days and yet you can have a group or multiple groups that would be unpractical for a single DM to run in person. By combining features of all major RPG types (MMO, CRPG and PnP) you get this hybrid that feels a lot more like the PnP game but with the immersion of a graphical world with a rich back story.
Maybe this isn't a pure MMO experience, in fact it is unlike most MMO's by design. But it is played online with groups of people - and with the ability to control who accesses your game, you can keep the L33T kids out or invite them all if that's what you like.
Just my $.02 I've had many many hours of fun out of Neverwinter Nights and never once had to pay a monthly fee either.
Originally posted by Rebel1 I am one that believes that there is plenty of Lore and stories in most mmorpg's out there . That it is the players that hurry scurry and move so fast they ignore the story. In my opinion, it is the players responsability to immerse themselves in the game. Players do not do this for the most part, and I believe it is the players that took the RPG out.
So the games tend to turn into pretty chat rooms with lots of neat colors.
Players cant stop talking or asking questions. "Where is the local bank?" Instead of just looking around and trying to find it, and asking people in /say.
There are so many reasons that RPG is not around anymore. But I blame the players, not the developers.
Ah but you have to ask Why do they scurry and move so past the story?
Could it be....because they can?
The story means nothing to the 'game'. Knowing the story means nothing to player, the game couldn't give a crap if you know why you are fighting the mobs, just as long as you fight them. Mob Dies, Player gets stuff. That's it.
Story will only ever just be added colour when that is the framework that you work in. You can't blame the players, they are doing what they've always tried to do. Win the game.
A framework must be designed that breaks the standard definition of 'game' into something other than win or lose. It is my belief that player vs player gameworlds are the most likely place to see such a thing develop, EVE Online being a starter example of what I'm talking about.
Skipped ahead to the end, so apologies if this has been said: But the RPG in MMORPG is alove and well, it's just doesn't mean the same thing it did when most of started game. Instead of creating characters with histories and acting out their lives (role playing) people are playing pre-defined positions (playing roles) as in team sports.
There's a really good blog that talks about what I mean better than I could: http://www.dopass.com/football check it out and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Personally, I think it's a long term problem - the people that built characters and histories are also the people that built these worlds that everyone now plays their positions in (plays "football" in) - what happens when we've all eschewed role playing for playing roles? Flat, boring, 2D worlds. That's what.
If someone actually produces an MMORPG that faithfully recreates the emersive experiences I used to enjoy while playing traditional paper based RPGs then I will cancel my accounts with all the MMOs I currently play and play that one exclusively. Until that joyous day I will continue to seek out like minded RPers in the LEET swill that proliferates ALL MMO"rpg"s.
Comments
I have to say that my experience is that the ball for RPing has always been in the players court. No matter how epic or engaging a story a GM(or game developer) can make, its up to the players to really engage the world and create the level of RPing desired. That said, the Devs in MMOs have the challenge of creating the history and mechanics to allow a level of freedom that allows players to really embrace and RP within the world aorund them. The real balancing act there is creating immersive story and history without taking too much choice from the player. I am sure its not as easy as those of us on the other side would wish it.
I think that point leans into your examples of UO and EVE as mechanics leading to RPing. Again, the story has to back those mechanics. With UO, the history is there, but I always found the progression of the world story to be somewhat lacking, and the additional mechanics(PvP rules for example) often forced people away from a world they always loved in single player world. EVE suffers a different issue. The world is stunning, the players in much control of it, down to being able to create "quests" for other players, but the time only skill progression is not for everyone(after all, whats the point in killing those pirates when the gain is ONLY nominal salvage returns). Possible potential there, but just not quite right(in my opinion, I am sure others will disagree).
In any event, I think Cari has the point. The ultimate MMORPG just hasn't revealed itself yet. I think the key here is in great deal a level of technology. The more advanced we get in graphical tech(I think the visual aspects are one of the big keys to immersion) and especially AI, the closer we can get to immersion and therefore promoting RPing. I think that the skills/leveling mechanics are not anywhere near the most important point in making something RP-able... its how engaged you make your players feel with each other and thier world.
I am not sure I see anything in the future yet that will grant that.. but I keep hoping.
Cheers!
Hello,
I am pretty much a hardcore role player. I read up on the world I am visiting, then make a character to fit into that world, giving them thier own history and personality. In the past I have played both good guys and bad guys. My characters have often make choices different than those I would make, sometimes to the detriment of thier progress, because it was what they would do. Over the years I can decided that, in the spirit of good will towards role players, I will no longer play bad guys. My reasons may, in part, be found below.
I have been in the MMORPG community since UO Alpha and have Beta tested and played probably half or more of the Active games on the list, plus am in five Beta's now. That said, I think I know something about the MMORPG world.
95% of gamers do not, nor will they ever, role play for more than a few minutes at a time. (If they Ever do)
Of the 5% who are left, less than 30% play "good guys". Or neutral at least.
That leaves 70% playing "assholes by design", of some sort. Some of them actually do a decent job, but generally: Wham, right in the kisser, brute force gankers rule of justification, "I'm role playing, suck it up".
My best guess is that there are around 30% of the "role play community" who are "rule lawyers", "god modders", or "I am the exception" players, (read Paladins, Drow, etc.. when it is not within the world lore and sometimes not even possible!) giving the community black eyes. Generally making Everyone mad with thier lameness.
So that leaves you with, what?, ~ 1% of the player populous who role play and give other players a good experience? And that is the key, Other players. MMORPG
No wonder we are so "beloved" and thought of as whiners. If 95% of any population thinks you are lame or get mad at you, you are history, in the social sense. Guess who the DEV usually are? ... that's right, part of the 95%....
Question: Why would DEVs waste thier man hours making role playing content for such a small "whiny" minority?
Answer: They haven't and they won't anytime soon. Lest you the game player forgets, it's about making a buck. There is no altruism at work here.
So, in conclusion, make your role play when and where you can yourself. I do, even in WoW.
Let me tell you that is not easy. It was a broken stategy game with a horrid plot line, half baked mechanics, and then they morphed it into a massive version of itself with even more brokem lore.
I mean, look at character creation, the Elves lost their Immortality? Right? Per the Lore, yes, yet, like ALL the rest of the world, player AND NPCs, they are still serially immortal. lol.
Did they maybe mean Invulnerable? I doubt it. It's just broken lore. And it get's worse from there...
So, why do I play? Because my wife plays and it is fun because I make it fun. What more can you ask of a Game?
Good article, too true, too true. I was looking forward to DDO because I thought it would be the game that told a story and the player lived it... however, it was more quest grind, etc.
Every MMO that's on the horizon claims they're doing something to fix this problem, usually. When the game comes out, you find it's little more than a different slant at the same goal, mob grind. Hopefully one day someone will find a way to make a game story feel more important than the grind yet keep it challenging enough that folks want to continue playing it like you were with CoH and a lot of people are with WoW.
so...
Yes! That's exactly how I feel. I want content that draws me in, makes me forget about the grind, and I really don't care how it's done. Be creative, do whatever it takes, but convince me I'm something more than a voracious, insatiable, xp grinder. I've only come close to that in City of Heroes/Villains, and even that formula isn't perfect, but if developers build off of that concept, make it richer, fuller, I think we'll all start seeing games worth spending an extra $15/month on after initial purchase.
Cheers!
I have to admit, that I've been playing a little MxO lately, and while it's similar to CoH, they've captured the feel and atmosphere of the Matrix very well. Very easy to immerse and RP in that game. Also, the community building tools and the characters in SWG are what still pull me back to that game constantly, despite the poor state of the game at present.
A MMOrpg and a RPG doesn't follow exactly the same rules.
Everquest, WoW or CoH/CoV qualifie as RPGs as much as Diablo did IMO(actually, CoH/CoV are slightly more RPG-like than Diablo). But the basic fact is, NO MMO company ever made RPGs before. Well, you can says Blizzard made Diablo, but is that really a RPG? You can say Square Enix made FF, but that is a different style and Square lacks on soooo many aspects, I am still angry to have buyed FFXI and never been able to play it while been able to waste it, it was about $80 cnd down the drain and nothing to play.
But all this is CHANGING!
www.bioware.com
BioWare is ready for the MMO world, but I doubt that the MMO world is ready for BioWare!
Go BioWare Go, show them all what TRUE RPGs devs can make in the MMO world! Rock us (in a good way)!
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
It all depens on how you understand the term RPG I guess.
I consider Eve-Online a very roleplay friendly game. Because it makes most behaviour into roleplay naturally. Maybe thats more like a "roleplay-light" then real roleplay D&D style, but I personally prefer it this way, having experience with both.
"There needs to be a game where, 1) there are no preprogrammed quests. The quests should be live, real time, whatever you want to call them, and run by gamemasters. Maybe quest isn't even the right word for it. I'll go with event for lack of a better word. Sometimes the events could be as simple as electing a new mayor of your town or something like that. It might be a raid on an orc camp or it might be defending the town from a massive invasion. Whatever it is should have a worldly impact based on the outcome."
Ryzom.
I just experienced such an event. An enraged kitin (large insect-like monster) attacked an outpost while two homins watched, cheering it on. As the event unfolded, it was revealed that those two were controlling the kitin somehow. Ulyros, a Fyros (playable race) investigator, came with a large number of players to try to defeat the kitin. He questioned the two who were controlling it - Gilo and Gaty. They said something about kitin larva making it all work, and elders being reluctant to use "it" because of rot. So we started attacking the kitin with Rot spells, and it finally died. Shocked, Gilo and Gaty teleported away. But by then, it seemed whatever they'd used to control the kitin might be related to the Goo, a cancerous substance that has long been consuming parts of Atys (the living planet Ryzom takes place on) and was recently used to assasinate Governor Stil Wyler of the Trykers (another playable race). Because of that, the Trykers recently held elections to choose a new governor. On each shard, the outcome of the election was different - on Arispotle (the English shard, which is the one I play on) the election was tied between two of the candidates, so they ended up with a governess and a deputy governor.
Ryzom supposedly has the worst quest system of any game. The missions are blatantly "kill X of X animal" and such, with no ties to the story. There are only a few more complex quest-like missions called rites. This is because the missions are only for increasing one's fame with a tribe, race, or faction. The game's real content is in its live events. It has often been compared to pre-CU/NGE SWG, as a "sandbox" game.
-----------
In memory of Laura "Taera" Genender. Passed away on August 13, 2008.
RPG means storyline, but that's not always the case. Some people think
RPG means you play a role in the party, and your role must perform
certain tasks, like healing or taking damage. Some people think the RPG
comes from the storyline that the characters create themselves, when
they 'role play' as their actual avatar in the game world, and speak
like the character would speak, and create their own history/story of
their own character.
Obviously this guy hasn't played EQ2, that
game is pure lore, so much of it, the quests are full of storyline, and
it has the voice overs that he was looking for. FFXI has the cutscenes
that bring the story to life, as well as Guild Wars with cutscenes and
voices. WoW is the exception, it lacks in game story (like 10 bosses in
MC and only 1 with lore behind it).
It seems like this article
guy doesn't know what he's talking about and has little experience in
MMOs. Sounds like he's only played WoW and CoH, which do lack
storyline, but there are other great MMOs out there.
While the analyzation of the issue (MMORPGs aren't RPGs at all, and in effect "chatrooms with a minigame attached"), the idea of making a "real" RPG MMOish is 110% utopia.
Play 3-4 rounds of Pen&Paper RPG, play a few single-playre computer-RPGs, then play 1-2 MMORPGs, and you know why. It's not possible, simple as that. MMORPGs should not be named that way, but there will never be MMORPGs, either :P
"I never said: Thou shalt not think!" --god
So the games tend to turn into pretty chat rooms with lots of neat colors.
Players cant stop talking or asking questions. "Where is the local bank?" Instead of just looking around and trying to find it, and asking people in /say.
There are so many reasons that RPG is not around anymore. But I blame the players, not the developers.
I see these patterns in many human endeavours actually.
So game designs have been generated that work to provide some new experience and for a while the pioneers are happy then the competitors move in and like a bunch of people all copying the same house design that the competitive builders have built in suburb designs that they have copied in urban designs that have also been copied and the pioneers move out to the jeers and catcalls of those who remain. So Everquest exists, as does wow and All the other games. You get an idea and you milk it for all its worth.
The interesting thing is that new ideas never start with the competitive energy really. They start with the dreamers and the pioneers. By definition this is so.
So in mmrpg the pioneers want something different, more emmersive and with more depth. And some companies try to make this happen and to that I say "Yeah Baby!" I want to see the new stuff and I long for that emmersive experience that also provides me with continual growth and changing citrcumstances within the game that is what role playing is really about. So I confess to beign a pioneer type. I have left many friends in other games who simply do not like that. There is a large market based on the repetitive competitive players. Fine. But NEW markets are not generated in the halls of sameville. They come from the frontier. The explorers of the Frontier create the new opportunities and can build markets where none existed. Lots of small companies consist of such folks and smart large companies hire such pioneers and give them a budget and let them dream. They know that R and D is the source of the future.
As to getting RPG into mmrpg, I fully believe that in my lifetime there will be mmrpg that are compelling in their depth and their storyllines and that players will be the "cast" that the story is based upon. The drive in these games will be the story...the story of each individual as well as the overstory of the world and all of its realms and kingdoms.
I read the information on the The Paradise Project and I try to stay abreast of the other innovative game ideas out there. Some commonalities for the new games that are trying to build rpg:
1. a deep role for player associations.
2. a way of giving players control over things
3. something greater or more compelling than a back story to drive the unfolding epic.
4. Game progression that is not based on leveling
Some things that seem to inhibit or interfere with emmersive rpg:
1. leveling and item centric games
2. guilds in their present form (glorifed chat rooms that allow breaks in emmersiveness)
3. lack of chance (too much predictablility)
4. lack of player character roles.
5. The commonaility of the end game experience (everyone is above average and uber)
Games like SWG and EVE are interesting in their open sandbox approach and for players that are dedicated hard core gamers such environments can become extremely emmersive if you have the time and inclination. But soon enough the hardcore players become separated from the rest. Ultimately such a huge discrepency is a problem more than it is a reward for the hardcore among us. It results in the community diffusing away from itself and for sameville to set in.
I think that developing the role of player associations is one critical improvement to look for in new games. Increasing the number of player associations that a player can belong to simultaneously, giving player associations specific and storyline driven roles in game and vastly expanding the functional roles of the player associations are three improvements that would enhance emmersiveness. I do not favour an entirely open sandbox. I want the devs to compel us with an unfolding story of epic proportions and to create an ebb and flow of events. This can happen in the open sand box but it is really pretty rare.
To illustrate, your player might be born in a village in a region of a kingdom. The village, the region and kingdom all have in common that they are player associations and they are linked to geographical areas. Each has a leader and a certain set of offices that players themselves might establish. The leader of a village could be responsible for determining the tasks, jobs and quests for his community and also for relationships between other villages and the ruling region. The player association leaders would also control trade.
There would also be action oriented player associations. Professional guilds that exist for a specific purpose. The player could join the Freeport Militia, the Rangers of Kelethin, or become a member of the Local Thieves Guild. Only in the future games each group would be run by a player leader who would in turn manage tasks, jobs, quests, open pathways to training, establish alliances and so on. The Rangers could agree to aid the local city state in defense of the realm.
Leaders would be empowered in this hypothetical game to do a great many things. The leaders would turn over frequently and the means by which this owuld occur might vary from combat to lottery to voting or by appointment. But leaders would be be guided by game developers in their choices. Game developers would affect the storyline by controlling the menus and choices that the player leaders have. So the troll villages might log in one day to hear the ramblings of a wild eyed shaman screaming about the vision she had ...one where the elves rose up to drive them off the land. The leaders would find a new set of choices in their menu of tasks. Choices to raid and pillage the elves and options to ally with other village where none existed before. Player leaders would sometimes have options in terms of what, who with and how much but sometimes they would be compelled. This in turn would drive the gameplay of the players in the player associations.
If you took any of our present standard games...Everquest, EQ2, WoW, or any other... and somehow you could add such player associations and that depth of relationship and responsibility then there would be an increase in emmersiveness. Offices in player associations would mean more. It would also open the door to storyline driven pvp. It wpould create purpose.
I think that some of the newer games are going to try to do such things. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.
Karsk
Karsk, what you're describing is something that game design theorists (and even philosophers) have been trying for many years to understand.
The most common way of describing this schism in gaming terms is "gameplay vs. story." I think of it more as "game vs. world," while the theorists prefer to say "ludism vs. narrativism," but it's the same thing.
Personally, I think this split is a lot bigger than just MMORPGs or game design generally. In writing The Two Cultures some 50 years ago, C.P. Snow observed some striking differences between how scientists look at the world versus how people with a more literary/humanities perspective regard themselves and the world. In particular, Snow noted how these two groups regard each other's outlook as incomprehensible and without value. (Sound familiar?)
But even that, IMO, misses the real distinction. I think it goes deeper, all the way to innate human personality styles. Some people are naturally more comfortable with the concrete, the specific, the competitive, the well-defined. Others are equally drawn to the abstract, the general, the cooperative, the internal. Doesn't that capture the distinction between gameplay (concrete rules for accomplishing defined goals) and storyplay (freedom to create and explore one's own stories)?
Although he has since updated it (in his must-have book, Designing Virtual Worlds), Richard Bartle originally described four types of gamers: Killers, Achievers, Explorers, and Socializers. While he frames the four types in different terms, I think if you read his descriptions of them (at the link below), you'll find as I did that the Killers and Achievers sound very much like concrete, gameplay-oriented gamers, while the Explorers and Socializers sound equally like abstract, story/world-oriented gamers.
Consider what this means for how current MMORPGs are designed. Most of these games are weighted heavily toward bringing in Achievers. The vast majority of game features are about accumulating stuff -- levels, loot drops, money, rank, badges, etc. -- through highly competitive, zero-sum gameplay. Naturally, Achievers (and a lot of gamers are Achievers) find these games satisfying. They may complain about specific features, but that's usually just to demand that they be even more competitive and offer greater rewards with less uncertainty. Killers (when they're allowed to play) like these things, too, though they're less motivated by collecting stuff than by the satisfaction of manipulating the gameplay of other players.
But what about the Explorers and Socializers? For gamers who naturally have these approaches to gameplay, whose fun comes through discovery and character interaction, the kudzu-like proliferation of Achiever-oriented, gameplay-focused MMORPGs is just painful. Instead of being welcomed into the game world through features that let them explore the social and physical nature of the game's constructed reality, Explorers and Socializers are basically told that their worldviews are worthless. By making every feature about competitive accumulating, Socializers and Explorers are implicitly told that if they don't like it, there's something wrong with them and they should go play something else.
If only there were something else! Even games like Seed don't quite get it -- sure, they don't have combat, but they're still highly competitive; they're just a PvP struggle for scarce resources in a social arena. That's a step in the right direction (as far as Explorers and Socializers are concerned), but it's not a complete answer to the Achiever games.
What's still needed is a developer who grasps that players are different, that not every gamer likes the same things. That a MMORPG's features ought to be designed to support actual player styles, rather than dreaming up arbitrary gameplay mechanics and expecting every kind of gamer to enjoy them. That the most satisfying game for a broad mix of gamers would be one that balances gameplay and narrative to the benefit of both.
A complete MMORPG would strive not only to offer exciting gameplay for the Achievers, but to set that gameplay within a deep, rich, open gameworld for the Explorers and the Socializers and integrate all these playstyles to create a coherent whole game. It would offer all players the organized freedom to define their own characters through story and discovery without having to "level up" or become "uber" or copy the class template of every other player to be considered fun.
In short, we need some developer to step up and seriously, consciously build a place that balances game and world, and to keep game and world features balanced in that place throughout its lifespan. Until then, MMORPGs will continue to fail to be as interesting as they should and could be. Yes, by the standards of the past, WoW is successful... but who says six million subscribers is the best we can do if we open up these games to more kinds of gamers?
MMORPGs can be designed to offer both gameplay and story in equal measure. I'm looking forward to playing those games, and I don't think I'm alone.
--Flatfingers
With respect to games, here are some links related to this subject that you might find interesting. Enjoy!
Richard A. Bartle -- Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs
Jeffrey Brand -- The Narrative and Ludic Nexus in Computer Games: Diverse Worlds II
Greg Costikyan -- Where Stories End and Games Begin
Marc "MAHK" LeBlanc -- idea for MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research
Craig A. Lindley -- Game Taxonomies: A High Level Framework for Game Analysis and Design
I think the writer of the article was largely correct.
However, I think that there is one game that wouldn't necessarily fit the MMO's typical definition but emerged to offer a great blend of the best of the MMO and solo CRPG experience.
That game is Neverwinter Nights.
You can have a DM run an adventure very much like the fond old PnP RPG days and yet you can have a group or multiple groups that would be unpractical for a single DM to run in person. By combining features of all major RPG types (MMO, CRPG and PnP) you get this hybrid that feels a lot more like the PnP game but with the immersion of a graphical world with a rich back story.
Maybe this isn't a pure MMO experience, in fact it is unlike most MMO's by design. But it is played online with groups of people - and with the ability to control who accesses your game, you can keep the L33T kids out or invite them all if that's what you like.
Just my $.02
I've had many many hours of fun out of Neverwinter Nights and never once had to pay a monthly fee either.
Could it be....because they can?
The story means nothing to the 'game'. Knowing the story means nothing to player, the game couldn't give a crap if you know why you are fighting the mobs, just as long as you fight them. Mob Dies, Player gets stuff. That's it.
Story will only ever just be added colour when that is the framework that you work in. You can't blame the players, they are doing what they've always tried to do. Win the game.
A framework must be designed that breaks the standard definition of 'game' into something other than win or lose. It is my belief that player vs player gameworlds are the most likely place to see such a thing develop, EVE Online being a starter example of what I'm talking about.
Skipped ahead to the end, so apologies if this has been said: But the RPG in MMORPG is alove and well, it's just doesn't mean the same thing it did when most of started game. Instead of creating characters with histories and acting out their lives (role playing) people are playing pre-defined positions (playing roles) as in team sports.
There's a really good blog that talks about what I mean better than I could: http://www.dopass.com/football check it out and you'll see exactly what I mean.
Personally, I think it's a long term problem - the people that built characters and histories are also the people that built these worlds that everyone now plays their positions in (plays "football" in) - what happens when we've all eschewed role playing for playing roles? Flat, boring, 2D worlds. That's what.
- Sniphunter