Trending Games | World of Warcraft | Elder Scrolls Online | Black Desert Online | Star Wars: The Old Republic

    Facebook Twitter YouTube YouTube.Gaming
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:3,303,038 Users Online:0

Show Blog

Link to this blogs RSS feed

The Free Fall

Random thoughts on MMORPG's and gaming in general from a long time player, fan, and hater. I've spent my time tasting porridge, and have yet to find the one that is 'just right.'

Author: Sovereign797

I've followed a lot of MMO's in development since I discovered the genre, and played many more.  They range from the completely worthless wastes of internet space to the very good wastes of internet space.   I guess I don't  really hate all MMO's, I have gotten many hours of entertainment out of quite a few of them before the developers destroy what was good about them or I have a chance to sit back and think about what I'm doing.

There are good points about WoW, surely as many as there are bad, just as there have been good points in many games over the years, EQ, UO, SWG, EvE, and even WAR and AoC.  By no means an exhaustive list of games I have played, in fact, not even close, but these are some of the more mainstream titles that I think missed the mark, yet each had aspects I enjoyed. 

WoW is a great example of a game you cannot say they messed up.  Blizzard is brilliant and they are making more money in a year than I could even begin to fathom.  Their game isn't the first to do what they've done, just the best at it.  It is not the MMO I would like to see, yet it still had elements that I enjoyed that no other MMO has been able to duplicate.  Raiding could be outrageously fun with the right group of people and an imposing challenge with others.  In that regard, they are a success.  They have their design, and it works for millions of people, so I say great job.

Too many companies now are trying to cash in on what Blizzard has already cashed in on.  You can't tap the same keg and hope for the same results.  They already ran that keg dry and moved on to the brewery.  All you developers out there, realize this, you do not want to be on the same pie chart as Blizzard.  You are not trying to attract their customers.  If you do, they will try your game, find you cannot do it as well as Blizzard, and go back to them.

I don't see the MMO as a genre by itself, but a series of genres.  Perhaps it is an industry all its own, as we've been calling it for years.  There are MMOFPS's, MMORPG's, MMOSIMs, Puzzles, historical, you name it.  The only problem is, every designer thinks it has to be done just like every other game, and specifically just like WoW.

I have thought they've been doing it wrong for years.  When I realized the potential of the MMO I had a lot of my own ideas on what you could do with such a game.  EQ 1 proved to me that the mainstream MMO's would not touch what I thought was the best aspect of this industry. 

Why are developers wasting so much time with content, quests, endgame, repeatable 'unique' bosses?  They are still making what should be single player and small scale multiplayer experiences and thrusting them into a massive world.  There's no difference between a heroic dungeon and meeting 5 people on to fight diablo.  I could get most of this kind of gameplay from a multiplayer session of neverwinter nights. 

They've missed the most important aspect of the MMO, the persistent world setting.  Stop crafting single player worlds when you could instead craft a living world.  Stop trying to make each player feel like a hero and appear they're making a difference in the game world.  They're not.  Everyone has done that quest a hundred times.  Build the world, give it a backstory, give it interesting lore to uncover, give it several conflict points, such as opposing views, races, resources, land, and let the players go.  They will create their own stories, they will be heroes or villains, crafters, leaders or followers.  Sprinkle in GM events to keeps things fresh and if the players are going to defeat a named boss, it either disappears and didn't die or if it dies, kill it, forever.

PvE content does not have to be instanced, ever.  Instances don't make sense.  How is my party and 5 other parties doing the same thing at the same time?  Build the content around a living breathing world.  If there's a dragon cave with a dragon in it, and some players go kill it, it should die.  Now there's a cave in the mountains that is uninhabited, to be taken up by wildlife, the undead, a troll. 

PvP should have meaning.  There should be a limited amount of permanent structures that guilds can fight over, with a very difficult and involved process for taking one over, the advantage going to who owns it.  If I get 10 of my guild together and I go fight and win against another guild I expect it to at least be the topic of some conversation the next day.  And given the proper game mechanics, I expect that over time, I will gain something in the way of that guild's lands or eventually one of their outposts, forts, castles, whatever.  

In addition to these things there should be something that drives the overall story, a villain or plague on the land that everyone can rally against, has no choice but to rally against.  It could be an extremely powerful world boss that is GM controlled or as little as a constant threat from a specific monster race.  The Wheel of Time series provides a perfect example here.  An MMO set in this world could take advantage of every one of these points.  In this universe, the lands are always under threat of Trollocs which can attack anywhere at any time, but have a constant presence in the north.  This is the perfect opposition for most players to fight and it can be set up to spawn randomly as well as be used with GM guidance to provide a more intense threat.

All of these things would provide a world that constantly changes through player actions and interactions with each other.  It would never be stale and never be repetitve.  Overall it should make for a more lasting experience without the need for adjusting level caps and adding endgame. 

This should be one of my longest entries, as it gives everyone an idea of where I stand with what I am actually looking for.  To date some games have touched on some of these ideas but never mastered or used all of them.  One day, this game will exist, if I have to make it myself, and when it does, a new genre will be born.

fansede writes:

 MMO development is still evolving..

"PvE content does not have to be instanced, ever. Instances don't make sense. How is my party and 5 other parties doing the same thing at the same time? Build the content around a living breathing world. If there's a dragon cave with a dragon in it, and some players go kill it, it should die. Now there's a cave in the mountains that is uninhabited, to be taken up by wildlife, the undead, a troll. "

What happened was that players learned that the dragon dropped special gear while the troll never did. So the walkthrough sites were born and flourished (Allakazam, Thottbot) and the players ran to the cave where the dragon was. Camping spawns became commonplace. Guilds would not let other groups get to the spawn and thus denied paying subscribers a chance for the experience.

Instancing was then created.   Yes, it has no "realistic" meaning, but then again waiting for hours on end for "your turn" to take down the epic boss for loot is not either.

"PvP should have meaning." My thoughts exactly. Only two games seem to address this to my knowledge. Dark age of Camelot and WAR. Some may argue EVE. If you haven't tried those games, I suggest you do. Open RvR is what you want, not battlegrounds or instanced scenarios.

In addition to these things there should be something that drives the overall story, a villain or plague on the land that everyone can rally against, has no choice but to rally against. " Sadly devs try to do this, but it always gets lost. Champions Online will try to provide an archenemy for your avatar which you can customize, and this I welcome. 

Keep up your passion, it will be noticed.




Sat Mar 21 2009 9:24AM Report
Sovereign797 writes:

Thanks for the comment, fansede.  I would agree with you that DaoC and Eve have done PvP right.  I would disagree with WAR.  WAR's PvP is more like a massive mini-game, if that makes sense.  It only has a very small impact on the game, similar to, say, planetside, where you're just fighting over various bases that can be turned over many times a day.

I think they wanted to do more, but they had to appeal to a large audience, since, again, they were aiming to compete with that which cannot be competed with. 

Sat Mar 21 2009 9:40AM Report
dcostello writes:

    I'm glad someone else shares my same views.  I think that, since I came from a SWG background, an MMO should be a "sandbox" archetype with limitless player customization possibilities.  The player should have a direct effect on the game (no matter what it is), and the game should have an indirect effect on the player.  The "Massive" part of MMOs seems to have been replaced with conservative view of "How simple can I make the game without losing profits..."

      Keep writing, because there are plenty of other people who I know are looking for the same thing as you are.

Sat Mar 21 2009 11:50AM Report
Rekmesh writes:

So basically, you want a players action to have an affect to the game. I'd like more of this too. Current games don't allow players to do this enough, although some do touch on this feature lightly. MMO worlds should be more persistant; it wouldn't be fun coming back to a game you left years ago only to find that it hasn't all. Now lets talk about the two points you and fansede touch on.

I also agree that pve shouldn't be instanced but fansede also presented a problem with that idea. IMO, when players are able to analyse and create walkthru's about a game, then something has gone wrong. Worlds should be changing over time, whether it be thru mob migration (i haven't seen this feature yet), season changes, or even guild wars. If devs are going to create a dragon that drops epic gear and such and then create a troll that drops nothing, why go and create the troll at all?  Especially with maps; a char can level 10 levels in one map and then never return to it. Devs could have diversified the types of mobs and levels at least. 

Also, the camping problem could be solved by a method I've been thinking up. A  game can moniter how much a group of mobs have been killed and spawn more mobs of increasing difficulty accordingly. This way, if a guild suddenly starts destroying a group of mobs, they will soon face mobs that is to dificult to defeat.

On pvp, it seems to me that you're looking for Open RvR as well. Taking over a piece of land, fortress, castle or whatever should definantly provide an advantage to the winning guild/faction or whatever. The advantages should make players want them. Things like an abundance of rare ores, materials and tele points come to mind. 

Sat Mar 21 2009 7:09PM Report
Sovereign797 writes:

Well, basically, why not create the troll?  If it is a varied encounter that has its own challenges attached to it and its own rewards, players will interact with it, or kill it. 

I think what my point was about the dragon was more that it shouldn't be an endless spawn of the same dragon.  Instead the dragon should have his own motives for being where he is doing whatever it is he's doing, good or bad.  The players can react to this powerful being or not, and when and if they do kill him, it should be epic and an accomplishment that not everyone can share.  Once he's gone, the cave should naturally be overtaken by other creatures, perhaps turning the cave from a difficult encounter into something else entirely.  Maybe another powerful being will inhabit it at some time, maybe not, but if one does, it should be different, not just in name, but in action, motive, and story.

I think I'll limit my response to that point, because I want to write about some of the other things I wanted to say. 

Thanks for the responses, and for reading my long post.

Sat Mar 21 2009 9:18PM Report
Velexia writes:

Sorry for a short comment, mostly just noting that I've read it all, and agree with pretty much all of it.  If you're not  in the process of developing a game yourself by 2012, I might offer a seat on the Project Vex team.

Sun Mar 22 2009 2:37AM Report writes:
Login or Register to post a comment

Special Offers