www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
A simple model of MMORPGs
Modern MMORPGs are multi-million dollar projects, and thus come with so many bells and whistles that we forget what these games are about. What I am going to try here is to look beyond particular games and explore the root purpose and means to achieve that purpose of a MMORPG. Thereby I hope to construct a simple model of MMORPGs in general, and see how features work or fail when compared to the model.
A game is defined as an interactive entertainment undertaken for enjoyment. In a MMORPG the interactivity has a social component, interaction with other players, and a more static component of interaction with the game itself. The interaction with the game comes in two basic flavors: repetitive and non-repetitive. A typical example for a repetitive interaction would be a combat. While playing a MMORPG you will have many combats, and while the exact details might slightly vary, the basic gameplay of combat is always the same and repetitive. Having such a repetitive component differentiates a MMORPG from other forms of entertainment, like most books or movies. The advantage for the game developer of having basic repetitive units in a game is that you only need to program them once and get many hours of entertainment out of it. But that is not to say that repetitive is bad for the players; for example combats being similar to each other allows players to learn how to do them best by trial and error, until they ultimately master the activity, which can be a lot of fun.
If you consider the basic repetitive units as the bricks of a MMORPG, the non-repetitive part is the mortar that keeps those bricks from falling over. We usually call this non-repetitive part the "content" of the game. Content is everything that isn't repetitive: zones, quests, or the game's lore. Doing just one fight after the other quickly becomes boring; but doing quests that encourage you to explore zones are much more interesting, even if that leads to repeated combats against the same type of mob.
And that is already the simplest form of the model: basic repetitive units like combat surrounded by non-repetitive content like quests. All the other stuff, gaining experience, leveling up, equipping yourself, collecting magical treasures, is all just virtual rewards, a Skinner Box to motivate us to keep playing the content and basic repetitive units of the game. And while anything with a chat function is open to an infinite multitude of social interaction, the social tools in a MMORPG are mostly designed to enable people to go through the basic repetitive units and content together. The goal is to keep you entertained, which is exactly what the player wants, but also to keep you paying for it, which is what the game company wants.
How well a MMORPG succeeds in keeping you entertained (and paying) depends on the quality and variety of the basic repetitive units, as well as the quality and quantity of the non-repetitive content. Quality is difficult: Everybody wants it, but nobody has a clear idea on how to produce it, except by throwing tons of money at the problem during development. Quantity of content is also money-related, because designing a good zone or quest takes development time, and providing lots of good zones and quests takes lots of time, thus costs lots of money. Cheap cop-outs like copying and pasting content, or randomizing the creation of zones and quests, have been proven to not work; you can't make the part of your game that is supposed to be non-repetitive into another repetitive part. It leaves you with too little content to hold the game together.
But seeing how much entertainment players get out of combat, a basic repetitive unit which is relatively cheap to produce, it is surprising how few games manage to add a larger variety of high-quality basic repetitive units. Instead of making for example crafting into an activity which is as entertaining as combat, and thus would keep people entertained for a long time, many games reduced it to a few simple clicks, which isn't entertaining at all. Adding other mini-games, like card games, to a MMORPG is still at a very early stage of development, a promising one. Whenever developers add features to a game, they need to consider how much time players can actually spend playing with those features. Why introduce a feature like player housing when all the house does is sit there? Having housing as just another money sink, without any play value, is a waste of development time.
So I think the future of MMORPGs is adding a larger variety of basic repetitive units which are equally entertaining. Instead of having a brick wall, where all the bricks are nearly the same, held together by the mortar of content, we get a stone wall with many different forms of stones. Players get a larger choice of activities to pursue at any given moment, which leads to repetitive features becoming boring less quickly. MMORPGs are already much advanced, offering a thousand and more hours of entertainment, instead of less than a hundred hours like a single-player game. But that still puts us on a cycle where few players play the same game for longer than three years. MMORPGs need to evolve further to break through that barrier.
- posted by Tobold @ 10:00 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
I'm not sure I agree that MMOs need to last longer than three years. With the pace of technology as it is, it's hard to keep a game relevant that long. WoW already looks quite dated, and even with EQ2, I can think of a dozen things they would probably do different if they were starting over. Not mistakes they would correct, but just new ideas -- like the cardgame Square had in FF8 (and you could play online in FFXI Online, so this is not a new idea by any means), that found life in VG and now is invading EQ.
MMO developers should focus on making a high quality play experience, and not worry about keeping people on the hook for more than a couple of years.
Hook them instead with a meta-MMO -- a game that embodies all the social aspects of MMOs, including chats, casual games, avatar customization, housing and all the stuff that really could be brought from one game to another -- the stuff you really would like to keep (how many people now playing WoW still log into EQ2 to see how their baby dragon is doing? I bet more than a few).
People playing the metagame could sit down with others for card games, duels, I dunno... anything... and then when they wanted to group up and adventure, they could all meet and step through a portal into their characters in WoW, or LotRO, or EQ2, or PotBS or whatever.
That meta-MMO -- that will keep people playing, and paying, for a long time.
Sony's @Home is supposed to be something like this. Areae's Metagame thing looks like it might be this sort of thing. Second Life could be turned into something like this.
Not every MMO has to support every play style. Punt some of it to the metagame, or to MMOs that do that thing really well, and focus on making the stuff you do well really shine.
MMO developers should focus on making a high quality play experience, and not worry about keeping people on the hook for more than a couple of years.
Hook them instead with a meta-MMO -- a game that embodies all the social aspects of MMOs, including chats, casual games, avatar customization, housing and all the stuff that really could be brought from one game to another -- the stuff you really would like to keep (how many people now playing WoW still log into EQ2 to see how their baby dragon is doing? I bet more than a few).
People playing the metagame could sit down with others for card games, duels, I dunno... anything... and then when they wanted to group up and adventure, they could all meet and step through a portal into their characters in WoW, or LotRO, or EQ2, or PotBS or whatever.
That meta-MMO -- that will keep people playing, and paying, for a long time.
Sony's @Home is supposed to be something like this. Areae's Metagame thing looks like it might be this sort of thing. Second Life could be turned into something like this.
Not every MMO has to support every play style. Punt some of it to the metagame, or to MMOs that do that thing really well, and focus on making the stuff you do well really shine.
# posted by 
: 18/9/07 15:08
: 18/9/07 15:08
I see things differently:
D&D = I wanna play out what i read in books (Conan/Frodo)
MUD = D&D all the time, via PC
MMORPG = MUD with graphics
D&D = I wanna play out what i read in books (Conan/Frodo)
MUD = D&D all the time, via PC
MMORPG = MUD with graphics
# posted by : 18/9/07 15:13
: 18/9/07 15:13
I think your concept of "repetitive units" doesn't quite seem consistent with the complex processes involved in game design.
Combat? Doesn't have to be repetitive. There are different weapons, skill types, and enemies.
And I'll also disagree with you on how an MMOG succeeds is based on "units." There are a number of reasons a game can succeed and many can be community related.
The future of MMOG's most certainly is not about units, but about presentation and advancing beyond the "walls" themselves.
If you've also noticed, games aren't aiming at snagging people for 3+ years anymore. That is the old EverQuest mentality when there were only a few choices. It's a buffet now, and there are plenty to choose from.
Combat? Doesn't have to be repetitive. There are different weapons, skill types, and enemies.
And I'll also disagree with you on how an MMOG succeeds is based on "units." There are a number of reasons a game can succeed and many can be community related.
The future of MMOG's most certainly is not about units, but about presentation and advancing beyond the "walls" themselves.
If you've also noticed, games aren't aiming at snagging people for 3+ years anymore. That is the old EverQuest mentality when there were only a few choices. It's a buffet now, and there are plenty to choose from.
# posted by : 18/9/07 15:14
: 18/9/07 15:14
Your simple model is fine in itself, but I wonder if it really distinguishes between a MMO and an offline single player game.
Basic repetitive ineraction ie combat - applies to most games.
Non-repetitive interaction, ie zones, quests, gamelore - applies to most games, too (maybe not Space Invaders!).
Take for example the game PSO. You used to be able to play this game online as well as offline. The only difference between the two was that offline was solo play, and online was either solo play OR group play.
When I first played PSO offline, I found it to be incredibly repetitive, and to be honest, boring. My whole outlook changed when I went online; the game was exciting, it was fun, it kept me hooked for almost 5 years.
So what was the difference? Both oline and offline had the same lore, both had quests (and most quests were typically kill monsters to get to a location and either find an npc, kill a boss or press a button). Both had the same game mechanics other than that, though.
The same mobs, the same areas, the same bosses, and apart from some rare weapons online, the same drops.
What made the difference? Player interaction.
Basic repetitive ineraction ie combat - applies to most games.
Non-repetitive interaction, ie zones, quests, gamelore - applies to most games, too (maybe not Space Invaders!).
Take for example the game PSO. You used to be able to play this game online as well as offline. The only difference between the two was that offline was solo play, and online was either solo play OR group play.
When I first played PSO offline, I found it to be incredibly repetitive, and to be honest, boring. My whole outlook changed when I went online; the game was exciting, it was fun, it kept me hooked for almost 5 years.
So what was the difference? Both oline and offline had the same lore, both had quests (and most quests were typically kill monsters to get to a location and either find an npc, kill a boss or press a button). Both had the same game mechanics other than that, though.
The same mobs, the same areas, the same bosses, and apart from some rare weapons online, the same drops.
What made the difference? Player interaction.
# posted by : 18/9/07 15:33
: 18/9/07 15:33
Combat? Doesn't have to be repetitive. There are different weapons, skill types, and enemies.
Combat doesn't need to *feel* repetitive. But it has to *be* repetitive. Programmers don't write a unique scripted encounter for every single monster in the game. They just set up the combat rules system, place the mobs, and lead the players towards them. What happens in the combat is just a result of the combat rules system (which can be complex). But you still can repeat it endlessly. And sometimes all that changes is the look. Fighting a wolf or an ogre in a MMORPG combat is pretty much the same. Adding a special ability to some type of enemy, lets say a stun, changes the players experience of combat against that sort of enemy. But it doesn't change what is really happening, the player still uses a mix of auto-attack and hotkey buttons to defeat the monster, he just might need to press the keys in a different order to succeed. Once he has found out the perfect order of key presses, he can repeat it by fighting another monster of the same type. And another player of the same class would have a very similar combat against that same monster.
If you've also noticed, games aren't aiming at snagging people for 3+ years anymore.
Most games aren't succeeding very well, but they are still aiming at that. WoW even suceeded at it, and is clearly trying to keep people in the game even longer by providing them with more of the same sort of content that made them so successful. The wish to have your players stick to your game as long as possible comes with the monthly fee business model, and isn't likely to go away. If games didn't want people to stay forever, they would have game over screens.
Combat doesn't need to *feel* repetitive. But it has to *be* repetitive. Programmers don't write a unique scripted encounter for every single monster in the game. They just set up the combat rules system, place the mobs, and lead the players towards them. What happens in the combat is just a result of the combat rules system (which can be complex). But you still can repeat it endlessly. And sometimes all that changes is the look. Fighting a wolf or an ogre in a MMORPG combat is pretty much the same. Adding a special ability to some type of enemy, lets say a stun, changes the players experience of combat against that sort of enemy. But it doesn't change what is really happening, the player still uses a mix of auto-attack and hotkey buttons to defeat the monster, he just might need to press the keys in a different order to succeed. Once he has found out the perfect order of key presses, he can repeat it by fighting another monster of the same type. And another player of the same class would have a very similar combat against that same monster.
If you've also noticed, games aren't aiming at snagging people for 3+ years anymore.
Most games aren't succeeding very well, but they are still aiming at that. WoW even suceeded at it, and is clearly trying to keep people in the game even longer by providing them with more of the same sort of content that made them so successful. The wish to have your players stick to your game as long as possible comes with the monthly fee business model, and isn't likely to go away. If games didn't want people to stay forever, they would have game over screens.
You are relating this all to old school mechanics. Have you played Tabula Rasa, Gods and Heroes? TR has a fluid battlefield and yes it may boil down to clicking the mouse over and over but which weapon? What range? Is it more vulnerable from behind? Am I behind cover?
No one is providing support for the archaic high end game that requires years of play. That just multiplies hardcore players who demand more. I can't think of ANY games that have successfully held on to many people more than 2 years besides EQ and the options were limited at the time.
Your reasoning would be sound 3-4 years ago, but MMOG's have changed.
No one is providing support for the archaic high end game that requires years of play. That just multiplies hardcore players who demand more. I can't think of ANY games that have successfully held on to many people more than 2 years besides EQ and the options were limited at the time.
Your reasoning would be sound 3-4 years ago, but MMOG's have changed.
# posted by : 18/9/07 17:21
: 18/9/07 17:21
I can't think of ANY games that have successfully held on to many people more than 2 years besides EQ and the options were limited at the time.
You might have missed a small game called World of Warcraft in that list. I played that longer than 2 years (and I played EQ slightly less than 2 years), and there are many other players who did so too.
You might have missed a small game called World of Warcraft in that list. I played that longer than 2 years (and I played EQ slightly less than 2 years), and there are many other players who did so too.
I just gotta ask, and it's because I don't know. What do you DO in WoW for two years? I played six months and had a 60 priest with plenty of experience with Ony, MC, ZG and we were starting work on BWL when the guild exploded and I left WoW. I also had a 40-ish rogue on the Alliance side, 30s Tauren druid a few alts on other servers and felt it was safe to say I'd pretty much seen what there was to see, except BWL (AQ40 opened on my server after I quit).
I had a lot of fun in the game, I did 1-40s on both Alliance and Horde, night elf, human, gnome, Tauren and troll, and one character to 60 and pretty intense raiding and world PvP, and that was in six months.
What do you DO for two+ years?
I had a lot of fun in the game, I did 1-40s on both Alliance and Horde, night elf, human, gnome, Tauren and troll, and one character to 60 and pretty intense raiding and world PvP, and that was in six months.
What do you DO for two+ years?
# posted by : 18/9/07 19:47
: 18/9/07 19:47
@Tipa:
If you go back and read the past 2+ years of Tobold's blog, you'll see he's done a pretty good amount.
The best part is it is all a good read even though is that long ago. when I first found this blog, I spent a lot of time reading all those old posts. Good stuff.
If you go back and read the past 2+ years of Tobold's blog, you'll see he's done a pretty good amount.
The best part is it is all a good read even though is that long ago. when I first found this blog, I spent a lot of time reading all those old posts. Good stuff.
I just gotta ask, and it's because I don't know. What do you DO in WoW for two years?
When I left I had two level 70 characters, a warrior and a priest, on the Horde side. I also had a level 60 priest on the Alliance side. Plus I played every race and every class there is in WoW to around level 30. World of Warcraft has great replayability, due to the many different newbie zones, at least until you get into the end-30's and only have the choice between Stranglethorn and Desolace.
You left WoW when your guild exploded. I joined a new guild when my old one did. Social ties explain a lot of the longevity of these games. If your guild would have survived for 2+ years, wouldn't you still be playing?
But I understand your question. If you remove the social ties, there doesn't seem to be enough game left to keep you entertained for 2+ years. That is why I was proposing to add more games to MMORPGs. Ideally there would also be more social activities than just grabbing 39 friends and killing Onyxia. The holy grail of MMORPGs is people feeling as if they were "living" in that virtual world. Hey, I spent 42+ years in Real Life ® and I'm not ready to quit that one yet.
When I left I had two level 70 characters, a warrior and a priest, on the Horde side. I also had a level 60 priest on the Alliance side. Plus I played every race and every class there is in WoW to around level 30. World of Warcraft has great replayability, due to the many different newbie zones, at least until you get into the end-30's and only have the choice between Stranglethorn and Desolace.
You left WoW when your guild exploded. I joined a new guild when my old one did. Social ties explain a lot of the longevity of these games. If your guild would have survived for 2+ years, wouldn't you still be playing?
But I understand your question. If you remove the social ties, there doesn't seem to be enough game left to keep you entertained for 2+ years. That is why I was proposing to add more games to MMORPGs. Ideally there would also be more social activities than just grabbing 39 friends and killing Onyxia. The holy grail of MMORPGs is people feeling as if they were "living" in that virtual world. Hey, I spent 42+ years in Real Life ® and I'm not ready to quit that one yet.
How would a game like this look? How can developers make content stay fresh yet at the same time come up with new ideas? I too would love to continue exploring new zones and meeting new people throughout my entire MMO life, but the fact of the matter is that devlopers can't keep it going aside from turning the end-game into a constant grind fest.
Unless of couse there is a way to make end-game content enjoyable, non-repetitive, and developmentally efficient.
Unless of couse there is a way to make end-game content enjoyable, non-repetitive, and developmentally efficient.
# posted by : 19/9/07 09:09
: 19/9/07 09:09
That is exactly the point I'm looking more for in the MMO's currently: social interaction and more 'lifelike' experience.
I would like to see a MMO with crafting that really would mean something, ie. one could device gear that way surpasses the loot, and make a decent 'living' out of it, where specialist crafters were revered as such. At the same time the great 'heroes' who spend their time raiding or defending the player inhabited 'towns' would be revered as such.
IMHO WoW has currently lost that part of the game, as everyone is capable of mastering those two crafting skills, making the real mastery a trivial thing.
I can imagine playing WoW way beyond the 2+ years, as I have only just started on the route, but I'm already missing the 'mini-games' outside the repetitive and non-repetitive content.
The games will become more enticing and addicting, and most probably will become more 'lifelike'. The most probable direction will be the catering for both hc-raiders AND casual gamer to generate more revenue on constant basis.
I'm not too confident that TR, WH or Hellgate will fill that spot, though you never know. I could more imagine that player housing and tweaking of crafting could do something along that line in WoW, maybe tweaking of EQ2 accessability in there. As AoC is now on hold, these kind of additions might be added there, as the magic of Hyborea and the trade in the lore have always been such that they require specialists and good communal support.
All in all, great post again from Tobold. I totally, completely agree with Justin: the whole blog from the beginning is just too great reading. I'm just refraining myself every now and then not to comment on some post I read from the past...
Keep it up, Tobold!
Copra
Post a Comment
I would like to see a MMO with crafting that really would mean something, ie. one could device gear that way surpasses the loot, and make a decent 'living' out of it, where specialist crafters were revered as such. At the same time the great 'heroes' who spend their time raiding or defending the player inhabited 'towns' would be revered as such.
IMHO WoW has currently lost that part of the game, as everyone is capable of mastering those two crafting skills, making the real mastery a trivial thing.
I can imagine playing WoW way beyond the 2+ years, as I have only just started on the route, but I'm already missing the 'mini-games' outside the repetitive and non-repetitive content.
The games will become more enticing and addicting, and most probably will become more 'lifelike'. The most probable direction will be the catering for both hc-raiders AND casual gamer to generate more revenue on constant basis.
I'm not too confident that TR, WH or Hellgate will fill that spot, though you never know. I could more imagine that player housing and tweaking of crafting could do something along that line in WoW, maybe tweaking of EQ2 accessability in there. As AoC is now on hold, these kind of additions might be added there, as the magic of Hyborea and the trade in the lore have always been such that they require specialists and good communal support.
All in all, great post again from Tobold. I totally, completely agree with Justin: the whole blog from the beginning is just too great reading. I'm just refraining myself every now and then not to comment on some post I read from the past...
Keep it up, Tobold!
Copra
<< Home
