Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
(Opinion) MMO development is not game development.
ladyattis
Member Posts: 1,273
What I believe to be the most significant mistake or misunderstood part of MMO development is the categorization of said development as being the same as game development, and there are two good reasons why developing an MMO is not at all like the development of a game.
First, MMO development is world building. This distinction is most important because any and all games can disregard consistency with respect to world building or environmental persistence. In fact, humankind's most significant games have focused on game play with no regard to a world or its context within the real world (Go and Chess). MMOs by comparison are the exact reverse, they focus on building a world through its history, environment, mechanics, and so forth. MMOs early on were heavily designed this way such as UO and EQ1, but as time went on MMO developers have decided to lax the position of "world first, game last" which has generally stifled innovation in regards to the nature of MMO development (world building). When one considers this fact of the emphasis on world building in MMO development it becomes clear that when one plays an MMO they're exploring a world within its limitations and within the limitations that a player has in knowing about said world. That means that a player of an MMO by design is in more of the position of an explorer or a scientist than a 'gamer.'
Second, MMO development is not necessarily about a finished product. This difference between game development and MMO development is one that has stayed true despite the ever growing number of professional game developers taking a stab at MMO development. The reason why no MMO is ever a truly finished product is by the nature that all worlds, even the planet Earth, is an world in motion (in that it never ceases to progress and change). Games, by comparison, are locked in to what they can do and what they'll always do, even if you include expansion packs as a means to offer additional functionality. But an MMO is always being added to either in more landmasses, or additional worlds, or simply more functions to aide in world exploration by players; this distinction is one that gives way to the first distinction (MMO development is world building).
With all that said, I believe the next generation of MMOs will not come from those seeking to make a 'game', rather it will come from those seeking to test new technologies and new ways to communicate within the real world. For me in particular I see MMO development as a way to improve AI theory and emergent programming by providing a means to test both in a 'real' world for each (either that both create said world or that both interact with it).
-- Brede
Comments
I have to disagree, MMOGs are games, they may be immersive and fully developed worlds but still games, as such you can never overlook the visceral fun of playing it. History, environment and so forth are very useful in creating an interesting and fun experience for players but if the core of your game is lacking then it does not matter much. Meaning the game may have good story, and an interesting world full of options, but if chopping up orcs isn't fun, or if making armor is dull that the world doesn't matter. Not saying any MMOGs do a good job at this, some are better than others though.
2 is true but then again so are games, like the sims or any game with expansion packs, the longer you can continue the experience the more money you can get, and the better fan base to develope.
Personaly I do not want to play a virtual world I want to play a game, immersion is important as it makes the game more fun, but developers should never lose sight that they are making a game, not a world sim, everything is aimed at being fun for players, not just creating a realistic world.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
There's a couple errors in your logic on this point because MMOs by their design are direct descendants from MUDS in which the most significant developments have always been in world building and not 'game' play. The reason for this emphasis is that the most reasonably realistic the world the more likely players stick around to play because they're able to influence the world that is built. Would you play an MMO that all you did was randomly killed mobs in inventive ways, but the same mobs would respawn regardless of how many times you killed them? Would you play an MMO where no matter how many times you defeated an opposing guild, there was no change of power or position in the game itself beyond rankings and leader boards? These games exist, they're often called MPOGs (Multiplayer Online Games), but they're not MMOs (Massively Multiplayer Online [Games]) because an MPOG does not require any sort of regard toward a game world. Also, game worlds have specific physics involved which you're ignoring that limit player progression and exploration. These physics directly include gameplay aspects of class/skill/etc progression (e.g. what you think to be the game play...). You seem to essentially miss my point on this contention.
Expansion packs themselves do not offer logical progression in the nature of a game world. A game world expands and alters itself per its own [meta]/physics which may result in unexpected consequences. Imagine a game where continents in the game world could drift, weather patterns could be setup to produce seasons, animal NPCs that migrate all over the game world itself, 'intelligent' NPCs that would forge alliances with human controlled PCs and even other NPCs (and even break such alliances to make war...), and other such interesting results. You can't get that in a game development cycle, because it's something game developers want to avoid: unexpected consequences are the bane of game development.
Developers that make games are fine and dandy, but MMOs are not games and never will be games. A classic example of this is EVE, where even real world player intrigue invades the MMOs own virtual intrigue that the developers setup (for better or worse). It's an unexpected consequence of world PVP where there are higher stakes of controlling territory and keeping prestige/power/reputation. You can't get that in a game no matter how you slice it.
-- Brede
Maybe it is just me but everything you described sounds like a game to me, just with better AI and more consequetial actions to create a more fleshed out world, which can add to the fun of the game but is not the sole form it.
When I say MMOGs are games I mean they are for the purpose of fun, so everything in the game is designed for that end. I agree that building a world is part of the fun of MMOGs but not the entirety of it, "continents in the game world could drift, weather patterns could be setup to produce seasons, animal NPCs that migrate all over the game world itself, 'intelligent' NPCs that would forge alliances with human controlled PCs and even other NPCs (and even break such alliances to make war...), and other such interesting results" sounds like fun to me too, but that is not the whole game, fighting has to be fun, crafting has to be fun, doing whatever has to be fun, all the features mentioned above has to involve the player in some way that it is interesting and fun. So it is just not what you can do but how you do it.
One reason I do not like Eve, sure it has options and a more dynamic world but over all controlling the game and gathering resources and fighting I found dull.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
an MMO is NOT a game development project, just more so in a sense that you forgot to mention.
an MMO project more closely compares to a mid sized corporations IT system. Everything thing from data centered design, having the same server architecture, the same high level validation requirements, persistance of the data, needing the same level of buglessness(IE when a bad one is found, which it will be, it will be horribly and badly abused), even the same amount if not more server load.
pretty much a whole shit load of work that would normally be grown over 10-20 years compressed down to a 2-4 year developement time with an even more advanced front end(when compared to a business app).
I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.
Very true. In fact the core to MMO/world-building is that you need to understand software and hardware architecture well enough to avoid pitfalls. A classic case of this is how MMO titles today on the backend use load balancing systems to handle changes in server population. EVE showed this to be possible with the use of server clustering, which can allow hardware assets to be put to use in more populated regions of their game and those that are under-utilized share similar or same hardware (sometimes several solar systems or more occupy a single server where as the reverse can be true where one busy solar system has several or more servers occupied with real time management of it). And with the introduction of cell phones that are 'smart' and console systems that are comparable to a media 'black box' we're seeing architectural tactics being utilized to make MMOs accessible from such devices (interfaces that are universal across hardware). Ultimately, MMO development also seems to include non-IT-like features such as the extensive use of mathematics, AI theory, and economics. I think MMO development within ten years will look more like 'real' world building than game development, where we're trying to build MMO titles to be domains for which AI and human beings can exist in rather than just services and entertainment hubs.
-- Brede
I beg to disagree..
A MMO is first and foremost a game and game design principles should be followed even more closely in MMOs than in other games. You might be referring to the fact that traditionally games usually have a beginning and an end while a successful MMO shouldn't ever end. This actually makes MMOs EXTRA susceptible to any game design flaws which is evident from a slew of recent (some of them VERY recent) flops which chose to relegate core game design to a secondary role in the overall design process.
A game is a game. Even if it doesn't have a definite "endgame" the game design rules and techniques still apply. There are resources and winning (pardon me "achievement") conditions. There are positive and negative feedbacks. There are discrete game mechanisms that have to be interconnected through various gameplay modes and resource flows. There are questions of psychology - player motivations and how to appeal to them.
MMOs are continuous and massive - this is why any small glitches in game design quickly become incredibly visible and destructive. If you play a one-off single player game you can tolerate game design flaws much more easily because it's only you there observing things and the whole experience is too short to really have the time to notice subtle imperfections. In a never-ending game with thousands of players (and each one a critic and potential cheater) you cannot afford any sloppiness in design.
That isn't to say that MMOs shouldn't become more open ended or more like true virtual worlds rather than simple "games" to be used and discarded. My point is that for this illusion of reality to work you have to do much more than simply create a tabula rasa virtual space. A good example of how this "hands off" approach can backfire terribly are the FFA server rulesets which usually degenerate into mindless griefing through ganking. A lot of effort and experience is required for something to appear effortless and natural.
Again, a game can totally disregard a world context in regards to their construction. An MMO cannot.
Here's the error in your logic: that a game must have an endgame. Chess and Go, although finite in possible states, have no real end game barring the 'endgame' rule (so many moves before stale mate in chess, but as for Go I cannot say whether they have such a rule). What makes a game a game is that it's fundamentally self-contained and self-referencing. An MMO by design cannot self-reference in that its given mechanics work on elements that can change per the users and AI interactions within the environment (either on each other or directly upon the environment, or even on each other through the environment). In essence, an MMO expresses an incomplete state (Godel) and would be better described as a portion of a Topos (See Topos Theory) more than anything else, because in an MMO you can built outward and inward with respect to the world from both the end user and developer perspectives.
The games within MMOs always end, but the MMO itself never does. You seem to not divide individual 'games' or game mechanics as laid upon or within an given MMO from the MMO-world itself. Nor you do you seem to recognize that in the real world we make games all the time that depend on the world's own physics, including socially constructed 'physics' (laws, governments, and the like), that the world itself never necessitates. Rather such 'games' are necessitated by human wants and needs, but we use the world's 'rules' or limitations to make them possible. So, again, MMO development is not game development.
-- Brede
I would say this... most MMO's are a persistant world where things often change and therefore are always in a state of flux. There is a difference between that and a game that is not finished.
I think it's a common misperception that if a MMO has bugs then it's all ok. Having some experience in this I know games go through several months (or years) of beta testing, load testing, or whatever before it is mastered. So to me it is fair for people to be upset when they spend $50 for a game and it to be severely flawed on launch.
In the case of AoC I would say they somewhat fell short of expectations as a consumer who wants to get a finished product. That's not to say the game isn't good, but I've personally decided to wait until they've got thier stuff together, (and yes I bought the game and played it)
sorry double post
Again, a game can totally disregard a world context in regards to their construction. An MMO cannot.
Here's the error in your logic: that a game must have an endgame. Chess and Go, although finite in possible states, have no real end game barring the 'endgame' rule (so many moves before stale mate in chess, but as for Go I cannot say whether they have such a rule). What makes a game a game is that it's fundamentally self-contained and self-referencing. An MMO by design cannot self-reference in that its given mechanics work on elements that can change per the users and AI interactions within the environment (either on each other or directly upon the environment, or even on each other through the environment). In essence, an MMO expresses an incomplete state (Godel) and would be better described as a portion of a Topos (See Topos Theory) more than anything else, because in an MMO you can built outward and inward with respect to the world from both the end user and developer perspectives.
The games within MMOs always end, but the MMO itself never does. You seem to not divide individual 'games' or game mechanics as laid upon or within an given MMO from the MMO-world itself. Nor you do you seem to recognize that in the real world we make games all the time that depend on the world's own physics, including socially constructed 'physics' (laws, governments, and the like), that the world itself never necessitates. Rather such 'games' are necessitated by human wants and needs, but we use the world's 'rules' or limitations to make them possible. So, again, MMO development is not game development.
Games can be multi-layered. A game within a game within a game. I think we actually hold the same position but for some reason you're putting the opposite viewpoint into my mouth (I appologize for possible bad english since it's not my native language). I suspect that what you're refering to is the so-called meta-game component of games. Chess is a game. Right? What about the Chess tourney and global ranking system? Do you consider it a game as well? I do - it is a game system that encompasses individual Chess games but only at the level of results rather than actual gameplay. You could say that it is a self-contained persistent world - a MMRPG - massively multiplayer role playing because it holds personal stats, advancement schemes etc. However it still is a game system that had to be designed using game design principles and techniques. The chess tourney system could function perfectly even without chess - it could use tic-tac-toe for example.
All in all I think you're confusing bad game design with game design in general.
AoC is an example of bad game design - it is not a bad game because it was designed as a game, it is a bad game because it was designed badly.
There are games out there that would directly contradict your OP's points of difference between MMOs and what you consider "games".
Collectible card and tabletop miniatures games encompass a strong component of "real-world" influence in the gameplay. They are that popular precisely because of this meta-game component inherent in them.
There are numerous board games that involve some kind of massive rule changing within the game itself. Cosmic Encounter's gameplay, for example is based on drastic unpredictable rule changes within each particular game.
Persistence is found in ranking and tourney systems for many traditional games and these systems often comprise a very convoulted game in itself.
World building is a staple of pen-and-paper games and the major part of their appeal is precisely the ability (almost a requirement) for players to actively create their own worlds with attendant rules to play in. There are huge RPG tomes out there filled with game rules on how to build new game rules and settings you can play in - and this is an integral part of the game.
And these are all games. MMOs don't really bring anything new to the table except a new technological medium that makes game systems of previously inconcievable complexities possible. However, the principles and techniques of game design still remain pretty much the same since the end users are still humans and they will use MMOs for exactly the same purposes they've been using all the other games for thousands of years.
Both can be referenced, but what I mean by world context is that a given game is self-contained in the nature of its functions. An MMO takes inputs from roughly two sources (possibly three if you include AI [which doesn't exist as we know it in MMOs...]): end users and developers. End users offer input through their own actions to manipulate the world through their avatar(s) instantiated in that given world. These manipulations by the end user are limited by design as to give them a challenge to overcome the limitations and to enjoy themselves as they learn more about the world and the limitations in question. Developers and their input into an MMO world are those both of 'leader' and a 'god' of sorts. They (developers) have fewer limitations per the tools they used to make the MMO world in question, along with self-imposed limitations as to allow the MMO world to follow its own course of events or at least follow a course of events planned in advance. Games in this case are complete by design, thus developers don't need to add any more features to make the game more enjoyable other than debug any given flaws in the game (usually compatibility issues and the like). End users don't have to explore a game like they have to explore an MMO as they know the rules up front in regards a game, but they know little (if any thing) about the MMO world and the limitations of their avatars in whole. This distinction between games and MMO world(s) is what is at stake right now in MMO development because there is a trend away from discovery, exploration, and 'organic' responses within MMO world design from how an end user progresses on the advancement of their avatar (character) to how the world is designed from geographic sense (lack of any sort of geography or zone-to-zone 'matching' [seamed or seamless]). In essence, MMOs today are becoming multiplayer hubs for non-persistent action(s) by players on non-persistent maps/zones/instances/etc. A given player action is meaningless in the same way as Waiting for Godot is meaningless.
Yes.
So, you would agree with Shakespeare that all the world is a stage then?
What you're offering is quite interesting, but here's the problem with the assertion: Chess and games in general have no built-in external reference. You can switch out user inputs in such games to rule inputs and use simple permutation functions to find out all the possible states per each turn, thus removing all user input and leaving the game to "play itself." An MMO always has an external reference from both developers and end users in which these interactions (direct and indirect) alter the outcome of the MMO world itself. The problem is that MMO worlds have stopped developing for the assumed benefit of giving everyone an equal chance to have the same experience, but such a so-called benefit has simply turned MMOs into existential plays where the developers must be the ones that nudge the world's progress along through content patches and expansions. Simply put, the developers want to be god over the player's experiences and not allow the players to carve out their own experiences per the rules/physics of the MMO world.
I agree that you could call an MMO a meta-game, but the issue is that meta-games are not readably understood by game developers and often are avoided by them for the simple fact that most probably didn't stay awake enough in Discrete Mathematics to learn how to utilize them (Set Theory and Color Theory are great places to start on them...). So, only three titles that I know of that offer some meta-game-like features that are coming out soon: Metaplace (Oddly, by Raph Koster himself), Littlebig World (build your own game levels, rate them, compete on how fast/well you beat them with others, and etc), and Spore (Procedural generation of the game world in all aspects from multiple user inputs [As Wright stated Spore is a "massively single player game."]). Each title in question offers the ability to interact within a given set of physics for a given 'world' or 'worlds' (in the case of Metaplace and Littlebig World). And despite each one being billed as a game, each one exhibits world building features either directly in the hands of players at some point or that they must discover the world rules (it seems all three exhibit both from what I've read about them...).
-- Brede
Lol, gotta sleep now. Catch you later.
Imo, you're looking at it from a too abstract a perspective. Games and "shared worlds" in general (any form of art really) all cater to a quite limited range of basic human psychological needs. The medium changes but the underlying reality stays the same. MMOs are nothing really new but it is my opinion that most of today's devs don't actually realize what ancient psychological need this new medium is naturally suited to satisfy?
I believe that the problem is that they mostly think MMOs (and computer games in general) to be a kind of a "story" medium which is quite patently false. Stories are hurt by interactivity, just like classical theater is hurt by people yelling at actors. Computer games (and MMOs especially) are defined by their interactivity, and a MMO that is more interactive, that allows more active participation by the players into the game itself, is better using the inherent properties of the medium and is therefore at an advantage to those that aren't.
On that point we definitely agree.
Primarily, my interest in MMOs is that they're probably going to be the first potential sources for human level AI possibly within our life time. As to why, specifically, I believe AI 'programs' will be able to build the worlds necessary for MMOs and to interact through them with players and each other. Also, I believe procedural programming is about to take a precedence over the current object orientated programming standard of today (mostly due to the fact that the contests in program design have all been won by programs that were designed procedurally over the last four to five years (Haskell and the like as the languages of choice)), which will also make designing the physics of such MMOs far easier to do and make more MMOs roll out faster (and possibly with better quality as a result).
-- Brede
I agree with nearly everything you said, Brede.
I hear from a lot of folks here that MMOs are games. They don't have to be though. They can be like toys, which aren't really played with in the same manner as games. So in essence I agree with you on that point.
But for me, Brede, the real weakness of this genre is what you (and many other devs) call one of its greatest defining qualities: the "never leaving production" and "constant evolution" mantra that tends to screw up MMOs in the long run.
Certain things in this universe (and MMO universes are no exception) have to remain constant and resistant to change if anything complicated and stable is going to grow. That, for me, is the basic ruleset and gameplay. It's the sort of "physics" that keep everything stable, and it's the thing that developers can't ever seem to leave well enough alone.
The thing that really sucks about this genre is that your rulebook gets thrown out the window before you even install. It has gotten to the point where publishers don't even include a game manual in the box, just so they can assert their prerogative to change the game at a whim. Rules and mechanics change so fast, it's difficult to keep pace with the changes, and difficult to enjoy the virtual world in the long run.
I think it is a very unwise course for developers to believe that they don't have to "finish" work on a virtual world. Because what we tend to get from that are Trammels, NGEs, instability, nerfs, overbloated live teams, bad launches, and having to sort through a byzantine mess of forum posts, patch notes, and dev chats just to know how to play today.
The goal shouldn't be to constantly change. The goal should be to have a virtual world so robust, stable, and interesting that you don't have to change things anymore, and you can start adding things to it (like you said).
It will never happen though. Too many careers depend on this "Austin mentality" of big live teams, community management, and changing things perpetually to justify the fees and positions.
For once though, I want to have a finished game that isn't going to change on me if I go away for two months.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I agree that too many poor developers and coders get away with using this statement as to mean that incomplete functionality is acceptable. In fact, I believe the mantra should go like this: The world is ever evolving, but the physics are feature complete. That means the world six months from now in a given MMO should have some changes already happening, but the ruleset for that given MMO should still be the same as that players who played from the start don't notice a difference in them at all and that new players shouldn't feel like they're clueless as the mechanics of the game by comparison. Being feature incomplete is not about an ever evolving world, rather it's about an ever persistent lapse in discipline. But that's just me.
-- Brede