The Universal Problem With MMOs And Players

monochrome19

Some time ago, another member of these forums posted this video: MMOs Suck Now.
And ever since then, whenever I play an MMO, I immediately think of that video and thread.

It wasn't until I read Steven Messners review of Cabal 2 and began to question why me and everyone else cant stick with an MMO that I arrived at the answer. I think he put it beautifully, "if you've picked up any MMORPG in the past 10 years, you have played Cabal 2."

And this is the problem. We've been playing the same game over and over again, ad nauseam. Forever.
I thought I liked ESO because it was a good game. I was wrong. Not that it isn't, but the real reason turned out to be that it felt different. It didn't feel like an MMO, compared to everything else on the market it felt unique. 

And that's why MMOs have been such failures and why we cant enjoy them. They all are, and feel, exactly the same. They are mirror images of one another. We go into new MMOs thinking it'll be a different/unique experience, but immediately are turned off when its more of the same.

Whenever someone post they cant enjoy MMOs anymore, we say they are burned out and they should take a break. But if you are playing multiple MMOs and cant find a sense of enjoyment, it isn't because you are burned out, if that were the case you wouldn't be playing in the first place. No, you still have passion for MMOs but there is currently nothing on the market that offers you anything separate from the familiar, dull, and monotonous MMO experience.

If any new MMO wants to be as popular as WoW, it will have to radically reinvent the MMO experience, and mechanics, in every way to feel fresh and rewarding to new and old players. No more "spell rotations" to maximize dps. No more clicking, waiting for a bar to fill, and crafting gear. No more repetitive quest. No more non-interactive worlds. No more everyone is the hero.

None of that. We've done and played that in a dozen games. That time is over and dead. We need something new.

Loke666

Well, there are a few exceptions but you are basically right. The current MMO model most games use have run it's lap now and it is time to move on to something new. We killed 10 rats for almost 20 years now and it have become old.

To make matters worst all MMOs built in that same way EQ and M59 were made in the 90 but with a many times faster progression and some raids at the end. Back then the games was mostly about leveling and there is where still most of the content is. Most players do level up to max, make an alt and do the same and then quit the game. That worked fine still in '99 when leveling took months and for some players even a year but when the average players do the same thing in 3 weeks it doesn't work.

A few endgame dungeons and raids isn't enough to keep most players in the game and frankly that is all that is left besides a arther shallow and instanced PvP when you hit max level.

To get players spend a year in the game there must always be enough content to do and it was like that in the early games. Modern MMOs don't have that less content, but you pass almost all of it in the first 3 weeks leaving you to repeat the same stuff over and over. The early games also were repetetive but less so since the content were more evenly placed with new opening up as you played.

The fix if would be slower leveling, far more of the content in the end or something new.

Buccaneer

Loke666 said:

Well, there are a few exceptions but you are basically right. The current MMO model most games use have run it's lap now and it is time to move on to something new. We killed 10 rats for almost 20 years now and it have become old.

To make matters worst all MMOs built in that same way EQ and M59 were made in the 90 but with a many times faster progression and some raids at the end. Back then the games was mostly about leveling and there is where still most of the content is. Most players do level up to max, make an alt and do the same and then quit the game. That worked fine still in '99 when leveling took months and for some players even a year but when the average players do the same thing in 3 weeks it doesn't work.

A few endgame dungeons and raids isn't enough to keep most players in the game and frankly that is all that is left besides a arther shallow and instanced PvP when you hit max level.

To get players spend a year in the game there must always be enough content to do and it was like that in the early games. Modern MMOs don't have that less content, but you pass almost all of it in the first 3 weeks leaving you to repeat the same stuff over and over. The early games also were repetetive but less so since the content were more evenly placed with new opening up as you played.

The fix if would be slower leveling, far more of the content in the end or something new.

I agree.  I would like some games to go back to a slower leveling pace with big open worlds to explore, to make the journey the focus of the game.  I spent four years in EQ and never got one character to end game due to too many alts and loads of places to explore.  I never felt the need to rush to end game any there was plenty of people around me doing the lower level stuff to group with.  I do feel any acceptance of a slower leveling curve would be difficult to accept for the modern MMO player due to the culture over the last ten years of the game starts at endgame.

Boneserino

I am tending to agree with Buccaneer.  I think a simple change would be to make leveling a little slower.   i am a level addict and the faster I level in a game, the faster I want to level.   Of course players can do that on their own too, but with the carrot dangling, it is hard to self control yourself.

And maybe change the requirement to level a bit too. Instead of just farming a mob to get exp., maybe players should have to get some explore points, or crafting points as well before they level.   Get players to mix it up a bit.  I know a lot of people just want to kill stuff and move on but that might be another reason they get bored of games fast.

booniedog96

If you've been in FireFall at closed beta v0.6 to open beta v0.8, Red5 was brining something new to the table compared to all the other MMOs that was out in the market.  It took a 180 to its development because it was too different and people of the forums who couldn't understand FireFalls system cried for it to be more familiar.  FireFalls crafting system changed and over simplified, lvls were put in, quest hubs were added for the hand holding effect.

I remember when SW:TOR had to put in a "classic" option for their UI because there were many people that were too used to WoWs UI layout.  I see it in many forums, people requesting that something familiar from previous MMOs be added or replace an existing mechanic in the devs MMO.  A big reason why MMOs are so identical to each other is because a vast majority of the MMO population want it that way.

When you ask people what they expect from a new MMO the usual and popular answers will be: 1) Quests/quest chains 2) Dungeons 3) Raid dungeons 4) Epic lewtz.  It's players who want a different shade of WoW/DAoC/SWG/EQ/UO etc. from the new IPs.

Thane

and here we go again.

people WHO THINK they SHOULD play mmos. because all the cool kids do so, ranting about how they don't like mmo.


it's simple kids. you don't like it? then ffs... DON'T DO IT!


prob solved, next topic?

monochrome19

DMKano said:

Unrealistic expectations is the number one cause of disappointment in life. 

MMOs are as fun as ever to players that play them as what they are - games.

Stop expecting a perfect game designed specifically to meet every single one of your criteria and you'll have fun too.


Also OP - there are a plethora of unique online games out there, that are not the same old, you need to look outside the top 10 AAA MMOs.

What unrealistic expectations? I never once used the word perfect or listed criteria. You dont seem to understand, what I'm saying is, MMOs can still have traditional elements but they need to be implemented differently or else why play? If you are doing the same thing in game x, y, and z. Its just the same game with a different title.

monochrome19

Thane said:

and here we go again.

people WHO THINK they SHOULD play mmos. because all the cool kids do so, ranting about how they don't like mmo.


it's simple kids. you don't like it? then ffs... DON'T DO IT!


prob solved, next topic?

  Your logic is pretty backwards.

Ghavrigg

The universal problem is people like the OP trying to consider everything universally. When you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing far less. Period. But what's the solution? I don't know, I gotta piss. Thread over, btw.

Coman

Call of Duty and Battlefield both disagree with your statement. Games do not need to be innovating to be succesfull. However the problem with MMO is a bit different, I admit. People are heavily invested into there current MMO and in general do not want to switch to a new MMO. In my opinion it is because most MMO just use the early levels as filler. Some boring, long tutorial about stuff most people already know about. So they go back to there current MMO instead...lets face it how often do you not read here "Keep playing, game opens up at level x". Games should be fun from the get go. I should not first have to invest 10-20-30 hours to become entertained (and yes that is what we pay for!)

Octagon7711

I don't really like slower leveling.  I see games coming out with xp caps, gimping players, huge skill tress that go on forever, no healers (except the monsters can heal),  no respects, even if it's a good game the restrictions are frustrating.  Someone who has 12 hours a day is going to level faster then someone who has 1 hour a day to spend on game time so there will always be fast levelers. 

For me if it's a good game that offers the player different ways of leveling, different classes to level that are fun to play, few restrictions on gameplay, and no forced single leveling method, then I'll stay with that game and might take a break from it now and then but will always come back for the expansions, DLC, or just because I enjoy playing it.  

I think GW2 has the right idea.  A lot of players want to level fast so let them.  The main thing is give them an enjoyable game.  That has worked for me as I've leveled quickly in that game and yet still login weekly to play it.  Because it's fun and it doesn't frustrate me by telling me exactly how I should play the game.  There's content in the game I don't like and because the way it's made, I don't have to do it to advance my character.  GW2 is just one example, as there are other games that hold my interest and the ones that don't keep me as a regular player tend to be the most restrictive.  


I really think the days of playing just one MMO for like five years are over, no matter how good it is.

Axehilt

monochrome19 said:

  Your logic is pretty backwards.

His logic is "if you don't like it, don't play it."

That's about as level-headed as it gets around here.

Khorrax

monochrome19 said:

If any new MMO wants to be as popular as WoW, it will have to radically reinvent the MMO experience, and mechanics, in every way to feel fresh and rewarding to new and old players. No more "spell rotations" to maximize dps. No more clicking, waiting for a bar to fill, and crafting gear. No more repetitive quest. No more non-interactive worlds. No more everyone is the hero.

None of that. We've done and played that in a dozen games. That time is over and dead. We need something new.

  I'm not sure you can create an MMO without repetitive content, be it quests or events or something else. The point is to not make it obvious and to make it somewhat enjoyable. I'm not sure why you're against crafting gear, but I agree about having a more interactive world. As for not being the hero, sure. But I've never played an MMO for the story, so it doesn't matter that much to me.

Colt47

The universal problem with MMO players is that MMO players ask for something different, then complain when it is different so the developers have to go back and change the things they made different to fit the model the player base is used to.  Then the players later down the road complain about being bored with the game and how similar it is to the "generic MMO".  Well, sorry, it's not the developers fault that 90% of the human population playing games seems to have forgotten that games tend to become the most enjoyable once you've "learned how to play it".  If people are being thrown into a quick test group to see if they like a game system, and haven't played anything that uses the system, they have to learn how to play the game system and it wont generally feel the same as if it is a familiar system.

Coman

Axehilt said:

monochrome19 said:

  Your logic is pretty backwards.

His logic is "if you don't like it, don't play it."

That's about as level-headed as it gets around here.

If true then what are you doing here? Then why have forums and talk about game and the genre?  

monochrome19

Axehilt said:

monochrome19 said:

  Your logic is pretty backwards.

His logic is "if you don't like it, don't play it."

That's about as level-headed as it gets around here.

Exactly. If you dont like something why would you do it in the first place. Backwards.
Edit: Meant to quote Coman.

Vermillion_Raventhal

DMKano said:

Octagon7711 said:

I really think the days of playing just one MMO for like five years are over, no matter how good it is.

Gen1 games used deliberately slow progression to boost profitablity as players would have to stay subbed for months to get to max level etc...

Those days are gone for good (and good riddance)

With P2P model being on the verge of extinction, new games don't need any of these gimmicks to keep players subbed for years to stay profitable.

Cash shops allow for profitablity even with constantly churning playerbase, as games are not focused on retaining the same players constantly for years. Its totally fine to play for a few days, take a break for a month and come back again. Play as you please, leave as you please, come back as many timea as you please.

Newer games can remove all the time sinks and focus on immediate fun, because they aren't trying to "win" players for years. The devs know that majority of players will leave after a couple of weeks - but f2p allows them to come back whenever without upfront cost.

Well, my opinion MMORPG's the force you to churn through generic questlines which consume you time and sell you magical ponies in cash shops.  Not exactly what I would call fun.

Axehilt

Coman said:

If true then what are you doing here? Then why have forums and talk about game and the genre?  

I like MMORPGs. I play them. It makes sense for me to talk about a genre I enjoy.

giggal

the problem is the "time sinks" aka down time between fights where you rested to regain endurance or power or health. That was normally the time you spent geting to know your team mates / realm buddies. Later games removed that with the emphasis on "end game". So now you dont form connections with other players they become disposable.

My counter argument to this was you may as well remove all the leveling and grinding and gear hunting and instead give everyone a end game char and access to all the raids and "end game" content.

Its like the developers spent time on the starting zones and your in them for all of an hour or maybe two if your looking around its like the development team shot themselves in the foot everyone spends all the time in the end game content you got 90% of a MMO thats never visted.

Axehilt

Rhoklaw said:

To the OP. Don't let the new kids on the block get to you. Most of them think WoW was the first MMO and that gear score and dungeon finder are awesome features. They don't understand roleplaying and certainly never played a pen and paper session of D&D in their life. This thread and the coinciding video you linked express the lack of immersion in MMO's. MMO's have gone from being living breathing worlds to explore and adventure in to a complete hogwash mash up of FPS instant gratification syndrome to single player content which makes little to no sense in an MMORPG. Frankly, most games titled as an MMORPG are not MMORPGs.

Sandbox MMO's will bring back that uncertainty and desire to play and I feel until a PvE sandbox is created with the right intentions, that we won't see anything relevant to the genre. Also, this genre has gone from passionate developers to business suits trying to make a quick buck.

Many of us aren't new kids on the block.  Many of us consider MMORPG players to be the new kids, as veteran gamers who've played since before MMORPGs even existed.  We built up an expectation that games should be about fun gameplay from those other games (where timesinks were almost unheard of) and so when early MMORPGs came along we wrote them off as half-baked.  Eventually WOW fully baked those ideas, and the genre exploded since it was what gamers actually wanted.

Archlyte

MMOs consistently fail to deliver three things imo: Agency, Varied Gameplay choices, and Goals.

Agency is attacked when you do things like have a game with four classes that have three trees each, or reduce the character's ability to interact with the world to combat-only interaction. You cannot gain a sense of context for your time in game without allowing the character to have some distinction of being different to some degree within the gamespace. This can be the actual actions of the character, the build, the gear, the appearance, etc. The perception of identity is more valuable than actual uniqueness of identity, so it is an attainable goal, but one that developers don't try to achieve. 

Gameplay choices are the things that appeal to the four player types and beyond. Having an accounting skill doesn't have to mean that everyone will use it, but the overall weight of the game will benefit from the added detail of an accounting skill that some person will find novel and use. Having purely social or economy oriented activities is also a good thing for MMOs because then you get a wider variety of activities for people to cycle through while still staying in the same game. Combat appeals mainly to killers and partially to achievers, but does little for the social or explorer.

Goals need to be myriad. The more goals of varied types and lengths the better. Goals are the main motivation for longevity in the game, and will trump even community for many players. A great way to make a two month-MMO is to give uninteresting goals that are simply grindy paths to a title or a suit of armor. The player realizes that there is nothing different about the character other than that a great amount of time has been thrown into a repetitive task for a minimal reinforcer. To combat this, the game essentially needs to have an many goal combinations with ultra short, short, medium, long, ultra long, and career lengths as possible. 

Axehilt

giggal said:

the problem is the "time sinks" aka down time between fights where you rested to regain endurance or power or health. That was normally the time you spent geting to know your team mates / realm buddies. Later games removed that with the emphasis on "end game". So now you dont form connections with other players they become disposable.

My counter argument to this was you may as well remove all the leveling and grinding and gear hunting and instead give everyone a end game char and access to all the raids and "end game" content.

Its like the developers spent time on the starting zones and your in them for all of an hour or maybe two if your looking around its like the development team shot themselves in the foot everyone spends all the time in the end game content you got 90% of a MMO thats never visted.

Most players don't want to skip to endgame. They want gameplay.  They don't want the game to create arbitrary mechanics that tell them "Okay now just wait here and do nothing for a while until your character recovers."  They want to actually be doing things.

Good entertainment isn't about deliberately wasting the audience's time.  It's about getting to the good bits.  The good bits in gaming are the gameplay; any parts where interesting decisions occur is gameplay.

Jonas_SG

MMOG were designed with a fundamental flaw: Control.
They want you to do what they tell you to do: Go do this quest, then that quest, get this or that item. Once you get so deep in to it, you won't even see the chains anymore.
Than they created this illusion of a Sandbox MMOG, where you are free of this control chained on to you by Developers, and so you buy in to it. You buy one MMOG after another searching for this Sandbox, but no one is making Sandbox games anymore.  Because it would mean to give control to the players, let the slaves become the masters. And no one want's that.

So while earlier MMOG might had good intentions, today MMOG's are all about Control and Money!

A famous writer wrote once: https://youtu.be/pJmuHNDcXLQ?t=127

tupodawg999

Colt47 said:

The universal problem with MMO players is that MMO players ask for something different, then complain when it is different so the developers have to go back and change the things they made different to fit the model the player base is used to.  Then the players later down the road complain about being bored with the game and how similar it is to the "generic MMO".


(snip)

There isn't a single group of MMO players.

It's such an obvious point I can only assume the people who can't see it don't want to see it.

Group A want something different. Group B want something the same. If Group A get what they want Group B complain and want it changed back. Group A quit. Group B play for a while and then quit anyway because that's their thing.

The universal problem is there isn't a universal "mmo" player - in fact even the change in the name away from "mmorpg" is a clue.

Colt47

tupodawg999 said:

Colt47 said:

The universal problem with MMO players is that MMO players ask for something different, then complain when it is different so the developers have to go back and change the things they made different to fit the model the player base is used to.  Then the players later down the road complain about being bored with the game and how similar it is to the "generic MMO".


(snip)

There isn't a single group of MMO players.

It's such an obvious point I can only assume the people who can't see it don't want to see it.

Group A want something different. Group B want something the same. If Group A get what they want Group B complain and want it changed back. Group A quit. Group B play for a while and then quit anyway because that's their thing.

The universal problem is there isn't a universal "mmo" player - in fact even the change in the name away from "mmorpg" is a clue.

I agree with you, but what I described above is damn near almost universal.   Heck, maybe I shouldn't even call that problem an MMO player problem as much as "the problem with older generations of video game enthusiasts".  Board games get around the problem by being simple enough to pick up that the learning curve is fairly low.  Video games have yet to get to that simplicity in the MMO space.

Kyleran

Axehilt said:

giggal said:

the problem is the "time sinks" aka down time between fights where you rested to regain endurance or power or health. That was normally the time you spent geting to know your team mates / realm buddies. Later games removed that with the emphasis on "end game". So now you dont form connections with other players they become disposable.

My counter argument to this was you may as well remove all the leveling and grinding and gear hunting and instead give everyone a end game char and access to all the raids and "end game" content.

Its like the developers spent time on the starting zones and your in them for all of an hour or maybe two if your looking around its like the development team shot themselves in the foot everyone spends all the time in the end game content you got 90% of a MMO thats never visted.

Most players don't want to skip to endgame. They want gameplay.  They don't want the game to create arbitrary mechanics that tell them "Okay now just wait here and do nothing for a while until your character recovers."  They want to actually be doing things.

Good entertainment isn't about deliberately wasting the audience's time.  It's about getting to the good bits.  The good bits in gaming are the gameplay; any parts where interesting decisions occur is gameplay.

I'm surprised after all this time you continue to confuse game mechanics with game play.  Two entirely different things, with the latter not always involving pushing buttons or making "interesting decisions"

As is often the case, programmers sometimes have little idea how their customers really use the software.