Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Stuck in the past or stuck in a futile dream ?
phumbaba
Member Posts: 138
These issues seem to be all over again and being lazy, I made a new thread about it. Going senile, I forgot what was said earlier in the other threads and too lazy to read them again. Bite me:P I feel the forums are as polarized as ever, but my intention is not to fan any flames so I'm sorry if you feel that way:)
Joking aside, I wanted to make a poll on what aspects of a literal role that are more or less missing from today's mmorpgs do people find something that should be insinuated when talking about rpgs, but unfortunately either I or the site failed to put a poll with multiple correct answers. I do admit I just fail now and then, but this time it might just not be me:)
On with the topic. I refuse to accept the potential of the term mmorpg is even close to what we are seeing today. We are seeing slow development and I guess I should be happy about it, but thinking longer term some aspects haven't changed or have gone with a very low priority. I won't go listing any particular aspects, but I'm looking for more player effectiveness on the world (improving in some aspects); more importance and support on players forming a society/societies and finding their place in it, multiple ways for average players to contribute; a game in which the whole experience is in line with what makes sense considering the story, its themes and nuances; etc...
One more rant: I see mmorpgs as entertainment. Not just as games and sources of fun. What does that mean? Quite a bit. I see the most potential in utilizing players to tell stories of the game world and their characters and societies. Talk about a futile dream:P
I think it is inconsequential to argue whether old games were better or not, but it is perhaps time some other play styles are accommodated better. For that end, I would like mmorpg.com to, alongside expanding outside of mmorpgs, to also try to familiarize players of what mmorpgs could be or could have been. The community column is nice, but dig deeper, please. Futile dream again?:)
The crux of the matter is perhaps what is deemed a success. For the goal of making money, there are arpus, sub numbers etc., but is there a source for any retention rates? Or average durations of account activities of those active after 2 weeks?
So, as some silly questions:
What are you looking for in mmorpgs besides fun?
If you expand mobas to include hardcore raiding and perhaps some other popular features, will they be your dream mmorpgs?
Do you think any of the current or incoming mmorpgs has potential to evolve to what the "old timers*" here are looking for?
*for the lack of a better word.. I guess most will guess what I mean:) grumpy old guys?
P.s. I write slow, never mobile, think too much and my time zone differs so I'm seriously a bad conversationalist. Sorry about that, I guess:) Makes me feel like I'm a fossil.
Comments
Yes
I failed to parse this sentence... ^_^; Not personally interested in that one, I'm not really interested in being part of a society... That would be nice. Players as GMs who have the ability to create quests, NPCs, and in-game locations, is the only way I can see to approach this. "Utilizing players" is a somewhat terrifying phrase, but perhaps it can be restated as allowing and enabling players to live out stories of their choice, if and when they want to.
This concept interests me. Most of my interest areas in MMO design are beyond or outside what's in current MMOs. For example, I'd like to see an article or article series about NPC interactability, from MMO-specific things like factions in WoW, to dating sim interactions in single player RPGs like Fable, Skyrim, and the Harvest Moon series, to actual dating sims. An article or article series about house building systems in MMOs and single player games would be nice too. I'm looking for a virtual world where I can express my self-identity through my avatar and their personal possessions, such as land, buildings, mounts, clothing, collections, etc. Also their achievements. Ew. Sorry, no offense, but that's not even remotely my dream MMO. I'm looking for a solo-friendly sandpark with lots of harvesting, crafting (especially house and appliance building), sim-style plant growing, hunting monsters for their crafting-mat drops or to capture them for use as pets and breeding stock, and pleasant NPC locations that tell good stories. My dream MMO has no raiding and no PvP, unless in a moba-like leaderboard/tournament system which takes the role of a minigame in relation to the main PvE sandpark virtual world.My comments in green. The rest I agree with.
Well success is measured differently depending on the point of view. For gamers it essentially boils down to fun/cost. (And naturally cost includes time.) For developers it's profit/cost (which again includes time.)
I've seen very little retention data for MMORPGs, and it's actually rare for any game to post their retention. Before Cataclysm, WOW posted 30% of its players making it past level 10 (which is maybe day-2 retention?)
Fun is the only thing I want from games. I'm not too specific about the types of fun (there are a few genres I dislike, but it's pretty wide open apart from that.)
A hardcore raiding MOBA? I'm not sure it'd be recognizable as a MOBA when designed that way, but the basic idea sounds fine. Dawn of War 2 did raid-style bosses with all sorts of special attacks (pain zones, cones, etc), and so it's easy to see how a more MOBA-like version of that could exist as a PVE experience. It wouldn't be a MMORPG without the large-scale shared space though. And if the core gameplay was closer to a MOBA than to typical MMORPG combat, it would instead be called a MMOMOBA. Which is fun to say, if a bit silly. Unlike PVP-focused MOBAs, it could have a much stronger focus on long-term progression as a PVE game, and that could be pretty interesting.
As for evolving towards what old-timers are looking for? Not based on any observable trends, but it's impossible to speak for all of those players since a few of them are more reasonable and less grumpy than others.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
.... and this is were we part company. Too often it is the scum and not the cream that rises to the top. Editorial control is required IMHO not simply player ratings.
Thx for the answers. My following (biased, of course) questions are,
What kind of a market for mmorpgs that emphasize rpg interactions will there be left when/if mobas with very direct gameplay encompass most or all the features that mmorpg players enjoy?
About having fun, the sad but true, very personal and inciting fact of mine is that I can find fun anywhere. As a kid I found it fun to take a shit. Sadly, not anymore. Yeah, I'm a special snow flake:) Still, it tells absolutely nothing else to me, when people talk how this or that is fun. Ok, so this or that is fun to them. And? Why? How well the reasons are conveyed influences my expectations or even perceptions a lot more. Even though the accuracy of the given reasons might not be sufficient, it nonetheless tells the listener/reader more than the single word of fun.
So, what do you find fun in mmorpgs and why? Is there a single aspect you could not see put into a moba or a mmomoba?
My idea is that it is completely ok to give players to tools to form hierarchys and some more effectiveness over the story than others, but whether it is done as scripted content or through indirect e.g. puzzle like class specific skills (divining?) that affect encounters is another matter. So far I'm not exactly a fan of instanced player created content myself, but it certainly has room to evolve. What I would like to see and what perhaps was in the mind of the storybricks guys was to give players more freedom over open world content. Become a boss and lead a horde of mobs to attack a player city; affect how a race of monsters views your own race and things like that.
1> what else aside from fun ? The question should be " what are you looking for in MMORPGs that make you fun"
"Fun" is the goal , what i looking for is the way to get fun . All the ways lead to fun , but difference people go difference ways.
2> No . Before MOBAs , i play Warcraft III custom map (which the root of MOBAs) , and what you say ready exist. But it too far from the MMO(RPG) i looking for.
3> I don't think so , it cost too much to product old style real MMORPG . Compare to it , make quick cash MMO (MO) is better chose.
Unless there are people who want to craft a master piece . or else . No way real MMORPG will born again
If there are something i want to see , i want to see MO with more than 10 player and longer play time than 1h. I give up on MMORPG ready .
What i want to see is a MO allow to open private server with hundreds players playing at same time
You see, thats what all this MMO identity crisis is all about.
Basically only advantage MMOs have over other online genres is sandbox open world gameplay.
Well the historic interactions of RPGs (as defined by the 35+ year history of videogame RPGs) are progression and combat. More recently (last ~17 years) interacting with the storyline has become a thing too. So those three things are the core pillars of videogame RPGs, and MMORPGs often provide the first two as interactions and that isn't changing, and they sometimes (SWTOR) provide the latter one as an interaction too.
The how and why of fun tends to be heavily grounded in patterns and pattern mastery (Koster, 2003.) It's not the only way people have fun, but by far the most common. More details of the book's high-level concepts in this older post. Obviously it still varies by person what specific patterns they'll latch onto, but usually they're latching onto some form of pattern mastery.
What I have found fun in MMORPGs is the mastery of combat (including teamplay with specialized roles) and systems (talents, crafting, etc). That doesn't mean these are the only things I could have fun with, only that they're the primary ways I have had fun. Basically anything full of interesting decisions and not watered down by excessive timesinks (a relic of the subscription-based business model) I have the potential to enjoy.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
What crisis? There's been talks about these things for I don't know 5 years? At least Lokto might know better than me, but I guess he won't answer
Why do you consider it an advantage? I'd say, it's about distinctive categories and diversification of the market/genre. What set's each other currently apart is very ambiquous, but it is certainly possible to categorize them better and make the categories more commonly accepted. I won't go into the "only" you have there:) Not now at least.
In my opinion, for mmorpgs to grow, means to continue on with the diversification and growth of the gaming market until gaming is more accepted as a form of entertainment. Then there might be more room and money for concepts foreign to most gamers today. There is definitely business to be done, but with how long a leap? Currently, the market is going full frontal towards bite sized instant fun, excepting select kickstarter projects that are miniscule considering the whole.
It will also be interesting to see what happens to the site after the overhaul
I most likely won't find it fun, but interesting nonetheless.
Yep, the only crisis is the personal crisis of the people who are in a currently under-served niche.
They like to yell "MMOs have died", but in reality only a very specific subset of MMOs that cater to exactly their taste died, and not even permanently. Under-served niches are good opportunities for smaller studios to jump into a barely saturated market segment where they don't have to go head-to-head with the juggernauts. (we already see mid budget games being made for this segment)
Yeah. I do have a lot of respect for Raph. For a short cap on his thoughts on the matter, I recommend
http://www.theoryoffun.com/theoryoffun.pdf
What I do find slightly difficult to agree with, is how you emphasize patterns - and how Raph says that players quit when they learn the pattern. However, interpreting his words as "the whole mmorpg is the puzzle for which the player is looking for the pattern" makes it more easier to relate to: the more you expand the puzzle, the longer the player might stay. Makes sense. As such, in a mmorpg, the more you expand the interaction possibilities the more complex the puzzle becomes. That is, of course, if the player is interested in the interactions.
Interpreted as such, it is hard to say he's wrong, but his choice of attempting to summarize all possible enjoyment and pleasure people might find in games with "fun", is not commendable and has perhaps contributed to devs trying to provide instant gratification. I do find it good to see him emphasize art and how game design has not matured yet.
In any case, thanks for sharing his work. Have to admit I missed it in your post in the other thread. It was an interesting read.
Thought I'd clarify a bit so it's easier to parse. To me, a community is a group that might or might not be bound by any rules, hierarchy, interdependencies etc. A society implies at least those three. To me it's a better word, but it might not be in any wider use about games, so I guess it was confusing.
Most pvp games actually make players form some societies with rules like don't steal from friends, hierarchies and often clear dependence on others. It is certainly possible for pve focused games to give players incentives to form more complex hierarchies and sometimes the guilds can function pretty close.
First of all, it was 30% of all free trial accounts and not 30% of all players, second, if you ever played WoW you would know that goldsellers loved those trial accounts.
Just a small correction, but Moba began with Starcraft and not Warcraft 3. It was called Aeon of Strife.
I don't think it was confusing - I'm not interested in being part of a community. I don't like guilds. I hate interdependencies and hierarchies; social interaction is only pleasant when it's on casual, safe, and equal terms. I believe rules should be inherent to the game and enforced by the game, never in the province of players (except players could be allowed to suggest new rules or rule changes for the game, and also players can choose to enter or leave parts of the game where special rules apply, e.g. pvp arenas).
Player hierarchies, player-proposed laws, interdependence, and guild drama were the four most horrible elements of one of my otherwise favorite MMOs, A Tale In The Desert, and the interdependence specifically is the reason I would never consider playing that game again.
What are you looking for in mmorpgs besides fun?
Challenge and social interaction.
If you expand mobas to include hardcore raiding and perhaps some other popular features, will they be your dream mmorpgs?
No, I would not play that at all.
Do you think any of the current or incoming mmorpgs has potential to evolve to what the "old timers*" here are looking for?
My problem with modern MMOs is basically just the fact that 90% of the gameworld is so incredible easy so a chimp could play. Heck, I really loved GW2 in the beta before they nerfed the difficulty, it was totally awesome but people were complaining because they got challenged so they nerfed it.
The only possible solution to that would be if they actually add a hard serverset to the games, because no publisher will allow a MMO with the difficulty of the classic games. And I think thta is possible if I ain't the only one wanting it.
Besides that I actually don't have that much problems with modern MMOs, sure they rewards people for soloing and punishes them for grouping far too often, leveling is too fast and the worlds are usually too small but no-one is perfect and I can live with that. The lack of challenge is my main problem in PvE MMOs.
PvP is a very different matter, I think MMOs generally lack good PvP combat mechanics and that the huge powergap between the players takes away 90% of the fun out of it.
Heh, it's a mess, I admit:)
When you think of the literal meaning of a role in a play or a movie, what comes to mind? What would you like to see supported or enabled in rpgs given enough tech? What about mmorpgs?
I don't know how he phrases it, but I call it the most common type of fun. Two other main types being zen and social.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Interesting. And I do admit my experiences are not much better:P However, with that you dismiss a lot of potential. Consider anonymous voting and mechanisms that properly support the minorities and provide them with different possibilities. Consider proper ways for everyone to influence and not dictatorships or oligarchies.
I agree, many things are best left for the devs to take over. For example, the devs shake the player hierarchy upside down every now and then by some events that make it impossible for the society to function as is.
The biggest problem many games have is how to incentivize people to take part. What would make you try to be part of something in a game?
Tools for influence, options for betrayal and punishment? Incentives such as shaping the world and different players' social and esthetic environments? Like minded players with similar goals?
The nutshell for me is that a good MMORPG should make me check the forums or with friends to find out what I missed when I'm offline. That happened a lot for me in EQ and SB, it happened a good bit in DAOC, it even happened somewhat in vanilla WoW, it happens in Eve.
You do not get that kind of feeling in a GW2 or TESO. The content is just too recyclable, nothing really matters in the games. They don't build that sense of community or accomplishment, there is no permanence to anything you do. There is no risk involved in the games. There is basically no community.
A MMORPG is a virtual world, its not a series of games in little boxes. Oh well, hopefully some of these smaller developers get it and look at a niche market instead of copying what is already out there and just aiming the game at the masses.
Well, I'd think of interactive fiction, rather than acting. The goal in playing a game isn't to present a performance, it's to have a satisfying wish-fulfillment, escapist, individuality-expressing adventure; something that allows you to feel clever, creative, strong, wealthy, accomplished, proud, and all those other good things we usually lack in reality. Some players like horror or melodrama; that's not my cup of tea though. I like a bit of romantic angst or a bit of a story about an underdog fighting against prejudice, but mostly I like cheerful and positive content.
As far as MMOs, the roles available for players would depend a lot on the game world and its culture. I personally like to be a rancher; ideally, a robinson crusoe wilderness survivalist crossed with a da vinci craftsman/inventor. I also like being a student attending some magical, ninja, or space academy, where I'm learning to use new cool powers. I'd love to play a role where there were several NPCs (which could be dragons or mechas, not necessarily humanoids) I could attempt to 'court' to become my partner in combat and travel and the game's story. I would also like to play a game that did a lot with achievements as player-set goals that were recognized within the game, not in some irrelevant external setting like Steam or Kongregate or whatever.
As far a role that actually interacts with other players, in the past I've enjoyed creating art that I could display to others within a game and get compliments on. If a game gives players a minigame level creation tool or a custom texture uploader I'll play with those in a way that includes interacting with other players. I often come up with suggestions for new features for a game, which I like discussing with other players, and it would be better if that could happen within the game (and actually paid attention to by the devs) than in an external forum or not at all.
If a game is designed to get players into a hierarchy, I would avoid playing that game at all, so incentivizing me to participate wouldn't be an issue. I especially don't want to invest myself into a world that other players might change out from under me. What I am interested in is creating dungeons, sculptures, collection exhibits, or other in-game experienced for other players in hopes of getting comments on them. I'm also interested in breeding pets or mounts to sell to other players, or selling other kind of unique creations, like clothing or sculptures. But that's only fun if there isn't much competition, like if I had a near monopoly because no one else wanted to breed pets, or something like that. In most games there's either a lot of competing sellers, or no buyers.
Now, if there was some kind of matchmaking system designed to bring like-minded players together, I'd try that out because I've never played an MMO that did matchmaking other than for dungeon groups or PvP. I'd be surprised if the matchmaking was actually any good, but I'd try it because it's something new.
Another way to look at dev goals in mmorpgs is the term open ended, which Raph argues is the method to elevate gaming to more lasting appreciation; to the status of art. One could argue that timesinks are lazy/bad design and an attempt to encourage alternate interactions in order to make them more viable and perhaps interesting. What has often been missing, is any incentives, progression and thematic background to the alternate interactions. In other terms, a puzzle has been missing and there has been no pattern to see. Timesinks being there solely for extracting hours/money, isn't the whole truth as it's easy to see it backfire.
Speaking of interactions, you emphasize those of you as an individual, which is a natural outlook on it. As you mention, it's a team game and there can be plenty of socio-economical, conflict, survival and cultural team related puzzles. Whether everything revolves around conflict or not, is by today's standards a non-issue, but ultimately not.