But its amazing how many of the conventions from Everquest still remain, and accordingly there are lots of common factors among MMO's. Generally speaking, most have a fantasy setting (although games like City of Heroes, the upcoming Champions Online, and others have deviated from that setting) and involve you playing character that you "level up" by doing various quests in the game setting, eventually growing more powerful and gaining new powers, equipment, and "stuff." Traditionally, these games didn't involve "skill," at least not in the same way that a First-person shooter like Halo would, or even a standard action game on a console. Your character's ability to do things really didn't depend on your reflexes or ability to play the game at all - it depended on how powerful he or she was, and that in turn was directly proportional to how long you had played the game (the longer you played, the stronger your character was) and whether or not your character had done certain high-end "raid" content that got him super-powerful equipment or bonuses.
While some things have changed, this is still largely how most MMO games still operate. However, the landscape changed somewhat by the phenomenal economic success of World of Warcraft, which dominates any discussion of MMO's due to its wild popularity and status as a cash cow for developer Blizzard (now Activision Blizzard). World of Warcraft ("WoW" for short) had some notable features that allowed it to flourish:
- It made virtually the entire game "soloable," in that you did not need a team to do most of the content. This was pretty unusual for an MMO game, where you typically needed a group of fellow players to take on most tasks.
- The developers included lots of "content" - quests, places to go, things to see, such that you really never ran out of "stuff" to do in the game.
- Once your character neared the maximum "level" of power in the game, they included a number of "raids" - high level quests that involved a large group of people, and which took longer than usual and yielded the best equipment in the game.
There are LOTS of other reasons for its success (including succesful marketing to the massive Asian MMO market, and the fact that even a low-end PC could run the game) but these points are particularly salient, as a "next-generation" of MMO's is starting to come out this year and next. While some of these aspects of WoW are being emulated, many in the gaming press and industry are concerned about certain of these MMO design elements, as noted by this recent article on massively.com.
From the perspective of a busy working gamer, here is where I stand on these factors.
1) Content - "Content" is only valuable as long as it is FUN. Having 1,000 quests to run in your game isn't entertaining if all 1,000 are terrible. And since these games don't involve reflex based gameplay or active skill (for the most part) the only thing that makes them fun is having a compelling storyline or visual element. So games that fill your time with "go bring this to person X" or "kill 25 vermin" type quests are not adding "content", they are - to use a non-gaming term - "wasting my time."
2) Raids - In my younger days, I did run some "raid" content, but these days I can't fathom doing so. When, aside from the middle of the night, could I possibly dedicate 4-5 hours towards doing a quest? That type of content, by its very nature, is simply not conducive towards real life - frankly, its not suitable for anyone. The reality is that part of why players feel a sense of accomplishment at the end of a quest like that is because it took so freaking long time to do it!
That's, in my opinion, lazy design. Content should feel satisfying because it was interesting, fun, and challenging. But that's the inherent problem of an MMO - in a game with little skill required, how do you make it "challenging"? I think the simple answer is that you need to make some skill be required. You need to force players to work as a team, move quickly, and pay attention. That way, you can give even a relatively short quest a meaningful feeling of accomplishment - far better than the feeling that you just were willing to ruin your Saturday (and your marriage) by staying up until 3 a.m.
3) Solo Content - It is odd to log onto a game server that connects you with thousands of gamers around the world, only to play by yourself. But sometimes its simply necessary. For example, if I am going to log on to a game to play for a bit while my daughter takes a nap, I need to be able to drop everything and leave if she wakes up. No "wait a minute" or "let me reach a safe point" will work - I'm leaving immediately. So sometimes I do not feel like burdening a team of players with an unreliable teammate. If the game does not have soloable content, I'm simply not going to play it unless I have an hour or more to put aside, which means I'll very rarely play (and accordingly am very unlikely to pay for the game). Its simple math - by adding solo content MMO developers massively increase the number of potential customers for their games.
But the other issue, and one I see addressed very poorly, is matchmaking. You see this feature in most First Person Shooter ("FPS") games, where the computer automatically matches up players of similar skill levels to fight as a team. But its relatively uncommon in MMO's, which tend to rely on cumbersome "searches" to find other players, putting the onus on you, the player, to either play with people you already know, or literally beg other people to join up with you. The problem with that type of system is that it takes up your play time with something other than playing. As a guy who has maybe an hour to play at a time, I don't want to waste my time searching for potential teammates - I want to get right into the action.
It seems to me long past time that MMO's instituted some form automatic matchmaking (presuming you don't choose to opt-out). Going to take on a particular quest? The game should automatically pair you with anyone else who has that quest active and who is not opposed to having some company. Why this feature remains commonplace in FPS's, yet rare in MMO's, is beyond me.
That's my general 2 cents on MMO's - I'll post some thoughts on specific games I've played, and how they did (or did not) implement dynamics that worked for me in later posts.
Or have setting as in Guild Wars that allows you to hire NPCs to act as your teammates for solo content. The AI is sometimes frustrating, but it's better than nothing.
ReplyDeleteI think some games are making progress on easing people into group play. I am all for solo content, but I tend to think what is the point of playing an MMO if you aren't doing things with other players?
ReplyDeleteSome games have done pretty good in this regard. City of Heroes is at the top of my list. Players could solo or take stuff on in teams and still be challenged, content was dynamic. A mission for a solo character was not the same with a full team. I wish more games would take this approach.
Warhammer Online has public quests, and the concept of open groups. Both are still a little clunky, but they are trying to improve getting groups of people together and playing. I commend them for that, and definitely this is something that needs to be improved in the industry.