Trending Games | Guild Wars 2 | ArcheAge | World of Warcraft | WildStar

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,905,539 Users Online:0
Games:757  Posts:6,295,086

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed

MMORPG Digest

I Intend to use this blog towards the primary ends of clearing up misconceptions. Diffusing Buzz Words. And, providing viable definition for otherwise watered down terminology. It is also opinion based. Though sometimes very assertive, take it as such.

Author: Helleri

End-Game Sickness

Posted by Helleri Thursday July 31 2014 at 11:51PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

  So, an MMORPG starts out with a target demographic. They add new content at every level of play and tend to keep their players generally happy. But, as newer MMORPG release - Perhaps ones that are a lot like an established game (but maybe do a few things better) - The original demographic begins to fall off. And, it doesn't fall off from the entry level of the game like one might expect. It falls off from the end-game. Where players have seen all that MMORPG has to offer. And, are ready to try something relatively new.


  And, when this happens. Extant MMORPG's tend to go one of four ways (sometimes a combination of 2 or more of these paths, that is hit or miss in it's degree of success):


  1) They re-focus and dedicate resources to updating the core game and it's trappings (one upping them selves and hopefully in doing so the competition as a way to pull players back). They take deep interest in their community and re-evaluate what they are doing vs. what their players want from them. This is not often something that is done. When it is done. It's usually successful. At the very least it promises to extend the life span of the game at the same level of success for years to come. Runescape has more recently employed this strategy. And, has been benefiting greatly for it.


  2) They slow development on their lead title and immediately begin working on a sequel. Or sometimes new game all together. The can see an end in site and they realize that for their situation their is no point in beating a dead horse, so to speak. And what they need is something entirely fresh. This is often a really good option. One that series' like ever quest have employed for years to much success.


  3) They change their pricing drastically. Trying to rake up as much money as possible before closing the doors and going out with a bang. This can leave players with a sour taste in their mouth for that developer. But, it is not a position that can't be recovered from later down the line. These are the games that people were either glad they stayed away from or sad that they got taken in by. They are usually mostly forgotten inside a few years of closing.


  4) They change who they are targeting as their demographic. They start adding content that existing players are not really interested in (which increase end-game fall off). In an effort to widen their appeal. And, this is where things can start to go bad. This is where End-Game sickness creeps up. And, this is the one I am going to delve deeper into.


  They tend not to change the end-game by much. They add to it. Up the cap. New gear. New zones. New monsters. But, they keep it roughly the same in mode of play. Because, the people at the end-game are the most fully invested. And, if they please them. They may be more likely to hold onto the bulk of their income. Until they can correct the situation on the whole.


  But, in doing so. They tend to ignore other levels of play. And, that creates a first gap of sorts. A point where the End-Game is almost totally different then the rest of the game. Where the end game is kind of the best part.


  And, with progressively raising the bar on what level of play constitutes end-game. They widen the gap between entry level play and end-game. To the point where by mid-level the end game still isn't a thing that is really insight for a newer player.


  It takes a while at this point to get to the good part. And, because of that it requires an attention span that the new environment doesn’t exactly command of new players at the entry level to the game (recall that they changed who they were targeting for wider appeal alongside becoming end-game heavy with content).


  Because, of this, in following months or years the game sees a lot more mid-level fall off of active players. And, that ends up leaving a even wider gap. One where new players coming in, only have elite players to look to. People who might not be willing to help as much because their situation demands more attention than it would have at lower levels in order for them to progress further. And, people who may not even be able to help as much. Because, of being too far removed from the entry level of play, as to not remember all that much about it.


  This ends up in new players being alienated. And, feeling immediately as if they can never reach the upper heights. They have nothing to aspire to as a weigh point to reaching the end game. Also, they have little to contribute that would make them worth the elite players time (an elite player needs higher level materials, knowledge, and support then a new player can assist with).


  Hence, there is shortly after, a new player fall off. And, what is left is just a trickle of new players coming in (only the most determined) and working their way up. Just enough to supplement the older players that end up leaving when there is nothing left for them. Maybe they only intend to set the game down and give the game time to catch up on new end game content. But, in the interim they find other games. And, if they do eventually revisit the old title. They often end up not liking what it has become. Because they have a sense of what has gone wrong that they just can't express.


  And, remember...The whole time, as more and more people at lower levels of play left. The game will have trended towards producing more end-game content (to bolster the part of the player base that appears to be growing stronger at first and was the mainstay of income to begin with). And, at the point where that part of the player base becomes the majority say in what players want. Content begins to only be made for the end-game.


  At some point, most of the game become unplayable. Not just because, most of the game feels like filler leading up to that last little bit...The good part. But because a majority of the materials a new player might collect through leveling won't even sell (except to NPC shops). They simply have no level of refinement in bulk that brings them close to being useful to players in the end game. Much of the items have the market on them fall out. There is no wealth to be had starting out. A lot of people are not interested in helping these new players either (unless their aim is to get to the end game as quickly as possible). And, because The game can't afford to focus on anything but the end-game. The entry level and indeed the majority of the game begins to suffer from bugs and glitches and in general degradation of information that will not be fixed.


  And, it is at this point, that an MMORPG has incurable End-Game Sickness. In all reality. It was doomed the moment it took the path of changing who it is trying to please. And, betraying it's core concepts for what it initially set out to be as a title.

  Surprisingly though...This does not usually mean the outright death of a game. Some games can persist for years in this state. With a small community of over-invested elite players making the game just profitable to keep the doors open with a great reduced in size development team, who's only focus is on keeping those few big spenders happy enough to stay on board. It's a sad situation. It's depressing to look at from the outside. It's even more depressing to be a part of. For the players. For the former Players. For the developers. For the publishers and everyone else involved. It's like two people handcuffed back to back. each with a key in their mouth and a carrot dangling from a string in front of them. Left alone in a room to die.

  And, all MMORPG by the nature of their design (by the elements that make an MMORPG what it is) are carriers of this sickness. It only needs the right set off circumstances and one bad choice for it to go active and ravage all involved. Until every one is left with nothing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  This is something of a warning to players. Understanding how this happens will let you see it happening. And, help you to get out and find a healthy game before you become part of it.


  But also, a note to developers and publishers... If you think your game is starting to decline. If you feel you need to do something to turn things around. Weigh your options carefully. Because, a lot of MMORPG have fallen into this special kind of hell. You may have noticed I made no separation between those making a game and the game itself. I referred to them both as the game or the MMORPG. That is because, Developers...Publishers. You are your game. Don't sentence yourself to this.

  I've seen this go down first hand. And, while how I think games end up like this is heavily opinion based. In the end there are plenty of MMORPG that find themselves in this position.  And, it's also a little different for some games (like Active Worlds). I've played a lot of these (as I am sure many people have). And, it's something that bothers me as a gamer because i feel like it can be prevented by not starting down paths that clearly lead to it to begin with.

  Coalescing these thoughts on how this comes about has taken a lot of introspection on my own experiences. A lot of reading on various forums Where people complain about something being wrong with their MMORPG. But, they can't place exactly what. Watching a lot of video's where people talk about what has gone wrong with their game. And, 14 complete re-writes (and one unpublished version of this posted to here) of this blog post in Microsoft Word. I have dozens of hours into this.

  So, I hope. Now that I feel it is ready to be read. That I present a rather whole picture that can be relied on in spite of how opinion based it is. And, that someone takes something valuable from it.

BlahBlah - Online

Posted by Helleri Monday September 16 2013 at 10:07AM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

So, I have been seeing this a lot. And, I am sure we have all noticed it and at least wondered about it in passing. Many an MMOG have been using a little tag after their name as an additional descriptor to get peoples attention. I am speak of games that end in 'Online'...

 

 

So, wait...what is this blog post really about?

It is about the fair and unfair use of terminology by game developers and publishers. When we use words too much and in too many bad ways. They become watered down at best and Buzz Words at worst. The problem I see here is that in a lot of instances "Online" at the end of a games name is doing both!

 

It's an obvious attempt to make a game sound more exciting then - likely - is. By making it seem familiar with past genre success. It's cheap. Plane and simple.

 

 

So, what is a fair use of this word in relation to a games name?

Well for that let's look at one of it's first uses... Ultima Online. In this case the publisher wanted to distinguish This MMORPG from a previous Offline version of the game. This was:

 

- Firstly, honesty in advertising. Letting people know "Yes, it is Ultima. No, you don't play this version by yourself."

- And secondly, Courteous. It was far more descriptive then throwing a roman Numeral on the end and expecting people to just get it, or figure it out.

 

And for the time (mid-late 90's). This is what you did when you had a game that had a previous incarnation which had little to no multiplayer and was not online. Yet, you wanted to make the distinction for the newer version of the game that was online.

 

We are also presented with fair extensions of this idea. Like Turbines Titles "Dungeons & Dragons Online" & "Lord of The Rings Online"...In both these instances there had been games and a fandom preexisting the MMORPG's. However, in this case there really wasn't a chance of mistaken identity. But, there was a want from fans to finally see an MMORPG or something like it from a publisher. Though, it was at this time getting a little away from the point of using the phrase 'Online'. Or rather it was expanding on the affix's usefulness. It was still a fair use of the word. All of these games had success (at least in their prime). And, continue years later, to keep on keepin' on.  And, all of them had Online in the name.

 

 

And, I just have to think...

At some point someone making a new MMORPG must have just said to themselves "Bet they will play it if we put 'Online' in the name." I think this might have happened right around 2000-2002.

 

But, when ever this happened and for what ever reasons there are now a lot of games out there that use this unfairly. Aika Online, World of Tanks (they are playing with using the online tag inconsistently now) to name a few. And, if you have not played it Fantasy Online... In order to be purposefully generic, Uses 'Online' in it's name...and 'Fantasy'. But the whole point of that game is to poke fun at MMORPG's. which actually makes for an entertaining experience (If your an avid MMORPG player you will continue laughing at every turn likely).

 

These games have no previous Offline version. They are trying to cash in on a buzz word alone. And, usually behind this mask seems to be a slew of poor to downright unethical practices. In my book a fair extension of the use of a word or term is not because you need it to try and make up for where you are lacking.

 

This has largely put me off playing a new-to-me MMORPG that has Online in the name (I do actually play world of tanks but it is my stupid fun change of pace so i don't burn out game).

 

The point of all this is we can not allow punlishers/developers to use terms, words, phrases and advertisement unfairly, without being due it, or otherwise dishonestly. I f we do we are only hurting our selves. So get on their forums, use their contact feature. Ask them why they choose to take certain approaches, and call them out when those approaches breech the trust you should be able to have in them, or hurt the community on the whole. Be polite. Try to be respectful. But also, be persistent. And, try to show them the side of it they are not seeing.

 

If we let them continue to water down the genre we all get soaked.

A Dynamic MMOG?

Posted by Helleri Monday April 22 2013 at 10:45AM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

  What does this mean? To my mind, this has become another one of our many ‘buzzwords’. We talk about how dynamic a game is or is not, without even taking a second to stop and realize that all MMOG are both dynamic on the whole and have many dynamics within them… Let’s start by taking a look at the words two best and highest use definitions (definitions source from a cross-reference between the Oxford Dictionary of English and the Merriam-Webster’s English Dictionary.):

 

Adj.

1 (of a process or system) characterized by constant change, activity, or progress: a dynamic economy.

Noun.

2  a force that stimulates change or progress within a system or process.

 

  So, an MMOG could be called dynamic because the developers add new content, in the way of items, quests, NPC’s, abilities etc. that further the development of the game.

 

  But, if this same game has a static world in which player decision does not change the way things appear or function much, or if we happen to view new content being injected into the game as generic or unnecessary…we can also say that game is not dynamic?

 

  This makes no sense. Something either fits a definition or it does not… And, an MMOG cannot be both dynamic and un-dynamic. The fact that all extant MMOG’s fit the definition in at least one real sense makes them dynamic systems. And, we don’t get to revoke that status, because one aspect within the system of an MMOG is more static then we would like.

 

  You don’t need to go on a hard hunt for a Dynamic MMOG in order to find one…just click on anything in this sites game list and play. You may not like the style of play or some of the sub-systems within the game that help make up the game as a whole… But, it does not make them any less dynamic. And it is entirely unfair to call an MMOG ‘Not Dynamic’ because it does not fit an uninformed/misinformed definition of the word.

What is an MMO vs. an MMORPG?

Posted by Helleri Sunday April 14 2013 at 10:20AM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

[Note: This is a rant. This is my blog and a I feel entitled to one on it every-so-often.]

 

  An MMO, firstly, is an incomplete acronym (and one could argue fairly a perturbation).

  It is a contraction MMOG (Which stands for Massive Multiplayer Online Game).  As an acronym is already the most compacted form of a contraction, reducing MMOG to MMO is both redundant and harmful towards being clear about what we mean.  MMO (Massive Multiplayer Online) simply does not make sense as a descriptor without a target for what it is describing. And, it is a term I feel we should stop using.

 

  So, why do you see it used so many places instead of MMOG or MMORPG?  

  It seems vague. And, that is exactly why it is used.  In order to allow things that would normally not fit into the MMORPG genre to ‘join in the reindeer games’. MMOG was by itself a way to do this as more and more games that were not MMORPG’s – But, launched from the same principle of being played online with other people - were being created. This allows types of online games such as MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) to be lumped in with MMORPG’s in their categorization.

 

  But, you may still be wondering why the G is commonly dropped from MMOG.

  Because, MMOG is not vague enough (apparently).  While MMOG allows something like a battle arena we play with each other online or a real time strategy game of the same level of interactivity into the fold. It does not allow for things we can do virtually online in a persistent environment that are not necessarily games. This would be your social MMO or Building and Exploration Platform or 3D chats.

 

  So, this is where we come to the meat of the confusion and the contention I take with this…

  In order to be ‘fair’ we have allowed our genre’s very definition to be chopped away at. So that, almost anything that can be  participated in online with other people, is an MMO.

 

  And, I for one have to ask…When will face book be added to the games list? I mean it is massive, it is persistent (In fact it is constantly in your face all over the internet and especially in your face if you have a smart phone). It is multi user as well.  It’s content rich, And there is something competitive or game like about it.

 

[Note: I am being sarcastic.]

 

  In my opinion we would be better off if we take a few steps back. Have a good look at what we got up. And, trim down the game list to only include things that truly merit being there. It is one thing to make a new acronym like MMOARPG (the ‘A’ emphasizing ‘Action’) to reflect that a game is an MMORPG that is largely based in combat. Adding one or two letters, if nothing else makes it more descriptive. It is another thing entirely, to butcher our own terminology so much that we might as well change the site address to anything-goes.com

 

[Note: That domain name is available…And yes, again you may again infer sarcasm.]

 

  This not only does a disservice to our sanity, by proliferating misnomers and poor description in discussions - that leads to confusions and arguments - But, it buries real MMORPG’s that may never get noticed under a pile of games that have mistakenly found a fit.

 

  Seriously... a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and just because a site calls itself an MMO (which should be a tip off, that even its developers don’t know what to classify it as or are hoping to ride the buzzword train) that doesn’t mean we should.  If we continue to allow the bar to be lowered, then nothing we have to say about the realm of gaming this site is supposed to deal with is credible.

How I define Polish

Posted by Helleri Thursday November 22 2012 at 8:02AM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

Polish in the strictest most original sense -as I had learned of it about 15 years ago when I started 3D modeling- is a term that comes from the realm 3D modeling and world building. It refers to the level of physical interactability of objects placed within a 3d environment (primarily interactability between an avatar/character within that environment and the objects inhabiting it).

Gamers have gotten a hold of this terminology within recent years and have expanded it to possibly refer to a great many things. To the extent that it has lost a lot of it's potency as a word. This understandable. Your average player will never see game barriers and bounding boxes as a physical thing. But, when i use it, it is in the most basic meaning, strictest sense stated above.

 

[that is the short answer, the long one involves understanding a little bit about how a game is built on the physicality level and understanding this is a gateway drug to becoming an avid modeler addicted to making games or components for them...which in my case has turned out to be a nice way to fund my gaming costs without dipping into my actual income...if your not the deeply inquizative type and only want the jist of it you need read no further...you have been warned :p ].

 

 

So lets look at what polish actually applies to more closely.

3D models, or concisely mesh, have a physical constraints. This is most typically defined by the mesh's outer most limits. Players in an MMO do not see these outer limits of objects. But, can tell they are there and often refer to them as Invisible barriers, Invisible Walls, Game Barriers, Map Barriers, Kill Lines etc...They are and in most instances what intended. Here is a visual on a typical bounding box around a simple shaded mesh that shows how Modelers and environments choose to draw them by default typically (using the objects outer most limits to define a right angle box - the green lines aside from the Y axis line is the bounding box)....

 

This is why a player may see a ledge that it looks it can be jumped onto. But, when they attempt it often slip right off. Modelers can change this where needed. A modeler can change the scale of a bounding box and it's position...Like so.

 

[BTW If you want this sub-division modeler it is a great one to start out on and you can find it here.]

 

With a method like this a player can jump up on said ledge. But, the issue in doing this is two fold. Firstly bounding boxes exist in the first place to define in simple easy terms where an object begins and ends physically. an object may appear visually outside of a bounding box, but only has assignable properties as being something that exists interactably, for the parts of it that are within the bounding box. This is because all machinisms involved need to be able to understand where one thing ends and another begins. So, while a player could now hop up on our ledge they will fall through the wall above it.

 

The second part of the issue is that bounding boxes are typically not conformative to the shape of an object and for simplicities sake cannot be made so. If the developers want a player to be able to jump onto a ledge like this on and not fall through it requires making a second barrier (often invisible) or having the structure itself be made of multiple objects. The more they mess with this the more likely a mistake will be made that will allow for game exploitation through map breaking. So in general unless truly nescessary developers tend to let the larger more simplistic shape serve as the bounding box.

 

Modelers, Programmers, and Sub-division/rendering software developers alike have been trying for years to over come this issue. And, they have had limited success. Mesh made in formats such as colladea ( .dea) don't need bounding boxes persay (rather they don't need one assigned). They rely by defualt on their own true shape (more or less) to define where their boundries are, and can be given other physical shapes after the fact.

 

The issue (of course there is one) is that this takes a resource cost at least equal to the mesh itself (the reason why bounding boxes were simple to begin with... in order to avoid just that).

 

So, a game that would have mostly objects with conformative bounding boxes defined by the shape of the objects themselves would effectively be twice as resource heavy as a game that simply found clever ways to use regular bounding boxes. There is the comprimise of giving a mesh a physical shape that roughly fits it's true shape but it a little less detailed. Not as complex as allowing it to simply use its own shape, and not as restrictive as using a regular bounding box...but the affective...weight of the object goes up none the less.

 

The less area a bounding box or physical shape covers on an object the less resources the objects physics cost us (this is often format subjective though). But also the easier it is to slip into many situations because bounding boxes can be fickle. They often like to combine with the outer limits of objects that are linked to them to make entirely new bounding boxes that the designer did not pre-define (by the environment choosing to use the outer limits of both linked objects as the constraint for the linksets physical shape over letting it be decided by what was designated for it). So, a bounding box should only be as large as it's purposes need it to be.

 

Lets extrude our model from before into a simplistic line of fence and have a deeper look at this (for my own piece of mind it will be mortised tenon on pegged posts with a simple slightly weathered wood texture).

[Worth mentioning is this small application called wood work shop that you can find here. It is completely free and gives you the ability to make just about any wood texture you need. (the company who makes it has a few other pay for softwares, but this one in specific does not pressure you to buy them and is not on some sort of trial version)]

 

So in the above image you can see by this bounding box (the bright green lines) that it is intended to act as an initial obstruction, that a character would likely be able to jump over walk around or walk on top of. Given the height of a a fence in relation to standard character height though your character would have to be a gnome or hobbit or something like that, to go under the fence).

 

This the kind of physical shape that may be given to an object that is intended to be used by...say for instance, a ranger fighting melee monsters. The NPC monster is likely too stupid to get around the fence so the ranger can stand on the other side a little way back and hit the monster while not taking damage (a good deal of more modern MMO's don't like the idea of ranging classes not taking damage and have monsters reset HP and loose agro -returning to their normal range zones - if they are not able to retaliate after so many seconds).

 

If this fence is linked to another exact same kind, the bounding boxes will combine but only to the extent that they were previously, each defined.

 

Now, if we wanted this fence to run along the edge of a mapped area to show the point at which a player can physically go no further we would simple make the bounding box exeptionally large (and sometimes unreasonably large). like so...

 

A bounding box this large means a player could likely stand on something half their height (like barrels or crates) and still not be able to jump over it. it also means a fence line can have small gaps and be unlinked, as long as two bounding boxes themselves have less than a characters width between them...that player who despreately wants to get out of the map isn't squeezing between them either in this case. The bounding box, also being twice the thickness of the fence means the player is highly unlikely to movement glitch their way through the box itself....

 

This is a "You go no further." kind of bounding box often placed half way up mountain slopes (that by their steepness alone usually wouldn't allow you to go up and over given game physics, but this is an extra measure...just in case you were to find a spot not so steep where climbing up and over would be pheasable otherwise) and at any other map barrier like a cliff or narrowing passage into a loading zone or screen.

 

Another aspect of polishing is when they give an object no bounding box at all or set it to non physical. this makes the object a thing that visually exists but can be passed right through by something like a character.  This is often applies (as a good for instance) to tie down ropes on tents in campsites. Also roofs of many buildings, and islands in the sky that you are never intended to be able to get to. If they can get away with giving it no physics, it's all the better. less physics active uncesarily means less resources cost for the game.

 

When developers give this aspect of a game a lot of focus and thought, employing what ever tactics make the most sense for the situation. And are over all very miticulous in how they do this to where most things make sense in the way a player can move about in the game environment...

This can be considered a Well Polished Game. However...

When developers largely ignore this aspect or rush through paying more attention to it due to in-game exploits, a game tends to end up being poorly polished or over polished. This is where a character can get stuck on objects in the environment easily, and even have difficulty going some where they should be able to go. Also the small frustration of being able to jump but not get ontop of a rock that that should be able to get on top of is a side effect.

This termonology and alot of others like flashing/ z-buffering were encountered by gamers in Social MMO's with a high degree of player made content . Like the oldest true social MMO Still running called Active Worlds (started in 1995 and to date it is still open though it should probably change it's name to not-so-active worlds for very apparent reasons, if you decide to take a look at it). Or one of the newer more popular ones called Second Life (a.k.a the WoW of social MMO's).

 

People who wanted to play and explore in these MMO's (perhaps sick of the gaming grind). And, maybe build things the way they wished them to be, to some extent, were through these Social MMO's put in direct contact with the people who knew how to do everything game developers do wanted to apply it in far more creative ways.

 

This (and especially in the past 7-8 years) has exposed gamers to the usage of termonology that doesn't describe direct gameplay efficiently without a deeper understanding of how games are made. So, things like 'Polish' have become very watered down words.

 

Sometimes people are talking about terrain.

"the map is not very polished."

Terrain Is usually made by starting with a flat panel (a quad plane) and building it or sinking it in places to create the desired topology, Like so.

[And hey many programs like this one are so simple it takes all of about 5-10 minutes to pretty much get how to do everything. You can this one here.]

 

This is done in map blocks or sections. Where two sections meet there can often be alignment issues if the creator is not careful. Which basically can create litteral gaps, holes, and apparent tares in the map. I think this is a fair and applicable extension of what polish can mean.

As is z-buffering of flashing showing a lack of polish (alignment)... and this is when two surfaces try to exist in the exact same place and constantly fight each other for dominance based on player position and view in relation to them. Because this still has to do with an issue of modeling well and positioning things correctly. I can see this as another fair extension of the term and it's meaning.

 

It is when we start using it to refer to graphical level of detail, user interface, and quality of graphics...that we start to loose the meaning of the word. The reason is these things are more often then not, changeable by the player. Different players, with different machines and connections will experience the UI (user interface) and LoD (Level of detail) in different ways. So, taking a term that is meant to factually refer to something concrete (the physical properties and alignment of models). and Applying it to something so subjective, ruins it the termonology.

The first MMORPG?

Posted by Helleri Monday November 19 2012 at 11:26PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

Firstly, lets not start off by confusing our terminology.

  MMO is not a contraction of MMORPG. MMO stands for Massive/Massively, Multi/Multi-player, Online...It is a stem term that requires an affix in the form of a preffix or suffix in order to be anything more then a generalization and an umbrella term.  Though there are many sub genre we ar talking about the MMORPG in specific
 

  Where an MMORPG sets itself apart is in the acronym (Massive Multi-player Online Role Playing Game). In an MMORPG the player takes on a role that they play out (usually an anacronistic or high fantasy role that is played out through a storyline). This lends itself to the institutions of character customization and development, questing, item creation and a lot of other things that other games don't have to have to still be just MMO's.

 

  This also lends itself to taking the player for the sake of storyline into an alternate dimesion, time/place (High fantasy worlds loosely based on real world historical, present, and futuristic paralels). But, in any case it puts the player in a role, that they play through along side many other players, in a content rich and expansive world.

So, with this in mind...

 

What was the first MMORPG?

  Well By our modern definition the First MMORPG, the first game (or series of games rather) that had all the elements of what defines an MMORPG, lacking only the scale on which MMORPG's are done was the MUD, which stands for Multi-User Dungeon. These arrived on the scene in the mid 1970's to late 80's. They started as largely text based roleplaying over precursors to our modern internet. they varied in their level of graphical capabilities and displays, but on the whole were largely 2d and low bit/low colors (when they did occur as a graphical game. Some of the earliest graphical versions even used ascci as apposed to real images to create their visuals.

  Slowly, these began to evolve (as did the internet) and by the mid to late 90's there were several fully graphical MUD's. And given their expansion with size, content and player base they began to be called MORPG's.



Then came a point In the history that has been heavily debated upon....

  Even though Neverwinter Nights (lauhching in 1991) could possibly be considered the first true MMORPG. Ultima Online (Launching 1997) is largely pointed to as the first MMORPG. And this is likely because it's creator Richard Garriott coined  the phrase for the game. Since NeverWinter Nights no longer existed after July of 1997... And Ultima Online released in september of that year as a (arguably) more advanced game...

 

   The argument is that the term MMORPG and it's conditions can't be applied to a game that wasn't around when they were established, and especially for a game which may not have quite fit the definition. This is a fair argument as the phrase was coined to describe how Ultima Online was decidedly different to begin with.



It seems pretty easy to Say that Ultima Online was the First MMORPG at this point...At the very least it is not completely unfair to drop Never winter nights from contending. The problem is that a game called Tibia came out in January of 1997 (months before ultima). Tibia fit the definition of an MMORPG from launch. 

 

And like Ultima Online continues to run relatively unchaged to this day (though both have advanced their content and graphical quality...even if only slightly). And, one could argue that since Ultima online was an adaption of earlier offline games and emerged as an MMORPG, where-as tibia was encarnated from the start as one (albiet before the phrase was coined) that Tibia may infact be the first true MMORPG.

 

In conclusion:

If we can agree that Never Winter Nights can be fairly dropped from the race we'releft with two contenders...

Tibia

which came out first and fits the bill.

and...

Ultima Online

 

which coined the phrase to define itself and of course having set the definition for itself, fits it.

 

But which deserves the title of first?

Well, let me ask you something else...why do you think I ended the title of this blog post with question mark :P

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bibliography:

I didn't mention a lot of noteable games, events and people in this blog post. I put in what I felt was most relevant and to the point as I am not attempting to do something as grand as writing a novel. I left out a lot of what some articles had to say on the basis of them being incorrect according to their own sourcing and citations...I did do plenty of research, cross referencing, and drafts of this article with complete re-writes and feel what I have said to be crediable. However, if any would like to check my sources I am providing them here:

Basic historical overview of MMORPG's And related MUD's -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_massively_multiplayer_online_games#Early_commercial_development

(from this article I read articles on alll relevent links to the point of my blog post)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgYuJczGv8o (and related subsequent videos by the same channle)

http://vault.ign.com/wiki/index.php/MMO_History

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sglKS-HfZMw&list=PLKSeWZetUN2e3xop9xuFYwSlodgwOuC9L&index=1&feature=plcp

Tibian History:

http://users.telenet.be/thesilentorder/history.htm

http://www.tibia.com/news/?subtopic=latestnews (you goto really dig to find the relevent points here).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibia_%28video_game%29

Ultima Online History:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_online

http://uo.com/ (again you really ened to dig to find information here)

Others:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neverwinter_Nights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_Kesmai

http://mud.wikia.com/wiki/Island_of_Kesmai

http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/mudhist.htm

 

How I define ThemePark

Posted by Helleri Sunday November 18 2012 at 8:44PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!
ThemePark 5 Points Defition :

1)-  Static World.

(no ability to make lasting changes within a game world from the player side. The status and shape of the world is developer perogotive).

2)- Restrictive Class Based System.
(Race/Gender locked into class/faction. Little to strict cross classing ability. Tierd class advancement. abilities/skills available and changeable dependant on chosen class).

3)- Limited Crafting.
(little to no ability to create/modify items are equipment accepting where it pertains directly to improving combative abilities. Heavy amount of account/character bound items. Ability to make better things tied directly to ones over all combat/progression level).

4)- Closed-end gameplay.
(Quests/storyline tied directly to progression (though not always enitrely nescessary to progress). Singular end-game focus. Heavy tendancy to force either solo or co-operative play. Little ability to diverge from prescribed methods effectively).

5)- Developer-Driven.
(Economy regulated by store prices. High end/priced/most frequent use items often regulated by careful control of a cash shop. major political social structure of the game and advancment of storyline determined by developers, often in the form of expansions. Low amount of player say or player made content in updates).

In my opinion these factors are the primary (or at least major) definatives of the ThemePark Sub-Genre of MMORPG's. And, should an MMORPG by large majority employ (4-5) these factors as part of it's aproach over a SandBox approach I consider the game to be ThemePark in Nature. Should a game employ a small majority/large minority of these factors in it's approach (1-3 or less). Leaving the rest of the 5 definative points to the SandBox side of things. I will consider it Sandpark (hybrid) in nature [as in: possessing a fairly balanced amount of features from both genres].


 

How I define SandBox

Posted by Helleri Sunday November 18 2012 at 8:36PM
Login or Register to rate this blog post!

SandBox 5 Points Defition :

1)-  The ability to have a lasting impact on the game world
(building, teraforming, cultivating, etc.)

2)- Free-Form Character Development.
(Custom Cross-Classing, No Classes, Shifting Character Archetypes).

3)- Intricate Crafting System.
(Non-instanced construction of housing and facilities, collectable and refinable resources, Majority of equipment and use items able to be player made and modified).

4)- Open-ended gameplay.
(no fixed path of progression. Questing and storyline not directly tied to progression. No singular end-game objectives. Skills unrelated to combat level).

5)- Player-Driven.
(factions, alliances, guilding and politics in general determined by the players often with player-base emergent systems of in game government. Economy maintained by the supply and demand of goods/wears/materials that are obtained/created/modified by the players and sold to the players).

In my opinion these factors are the primary (or at least major) definatives of the SandBox Sub-Genre of MMORPGs. And, should an MMORPG by large majority employ (4-5) these factors as part of it's aproach over a Themepark approach I consider the game to be Sandbox in Nature. Should a game employ a small majority/large minority of these factors in it's approach (3 or less). Leaving the rest of the 5 definative points to the Themepark side of things. I will consider it Sandpark (hybrid) in nature [as in: possessing a fairly balanced amount of features from both genres].

 

Special Offers