As an adult gamer I find it is a struggle to find entertainment playing MMOs in 2011.  As a computer programmer I am often curious about the various aspects of game design.  There was a time when the illusion of the MMO world was so great that I disappear from this world and exist in another for short times.  For many reasons, each of which are worthy of their own thread, the law of diminishing returns is fully applicable to EQ/WoW style games.  I find myself naturally more critical of the worlds I try to inhabit because the archtype is now with me.  I find myself dissatisfied with the entertainment value of current games.

The desire for imersion and a little harmless escapism after a honest day's work is also still with me.  The promise of seeking refuge in any of the game worlds, however, is all but lost.  I find the genre has evolved into madness with quests as compelling and deep as the stories that unfold in my 5 year old's cartoon.

"Little Johnnie has lost all of his eggs.  If you go and collect them all I will give you a reward".

This seems to be be best the genre is willing to offer post-1st gen for underpinning story line: a series of disjoined tasks that , by design, relate to nothing.

Very early in game design the notion of killing as a singular means of progression had been adapted.  I think games are boring when they don't have monsters to fight.  I however, find myself more and more disturbed as I age (36 now) with the slaying of large numbers of humans such as in a place like Scarlet Monstary.

In fact, I believe the imagery associated with mass humanoid death may not be entirely healthy.  I am by no means saying that killing should be removed from games but it should indeed be removed as a means of progression.  Rather, the end goal or other "power ups" along the way should provide the exp or advancement.

Good games can be made that do not have, at their core, death. Compelling content and puzzles could be built upon the idea that several tasks must be accomplished in order to reach a boss.

The last cheif annoyance is with items.  Simply put little is better.  Games that extend the rusty sword concept and offer few but powerful alternatives are better than games that have 3000 different swords all with the same stats for the warrior class at level 2.

Obviously MMO's are money making ventures and will appeal to the lowest common demonator of human intelligence.  As video games get more and more main steam we can expect the general intelligence level to  dumbed down accordingly.  The only way that new games will be released is if some small indy company nails it. 

Since video game design seems to be an expression of the zeitgeist of the genre at any given time, I can only hope that there is enough demand for a game of sophistication over dumbed down play soon.

It's the years long development cycle with "big names" - companies are afraid to take any real risks to see years later that it wasnt so good idea. I wish they took more risks but have backup plans, it wouldnt be the first time when a mmorpg changes a bit more during years than what you get in your average content patch.

I'd be very much in favour of a quality over quantity approach, be it with opponents, quests or items. We'll see if more developers pick up on this.

---

Originally posted by Rekindle
 
The last cheif annoyance is with items.  Simply put little is better.  Games that extend the rusty sword concept and offer few but powerful alternatives are better than games that have 3000 different swords all with the same stats for the warrior class at level 2.
 

---

How can giving players a cosmetic choice be in any way bad at any level? If a sword is the only weapon type you can use it's a problem. However a greater variety within each of several types is a good thing.

If we are talking about MMO's game mechanics, I challenge you to provide evidence that MMOs in general have 'dumbed down'.

Sure, UO/EQ had some mechanics that TOOK a long time, but wasn't mechanically more advanced than what we have now.

And last I checked, those games hasn't changed that much mechanic-wise and is still going.

If we are talking about MMOs in general, we have to look at WoW cause more than half of the MMO playerbase plays/played that game. And in WoW the mechanics actually advanced dramatically over vanilla to Cata.

You say you are a computer programmer, I'd encourage you to talk to actual DESIGNERS (shouldn't be hard since you'll probably deal with them everyday) so you can see what it means to 'design' a game. Not 'code' a game.

Originally posted by Rekindle

Good games can be made that do not have, at their core, death. Compelling content and puzzles could be built upon the idea that several tasks must be accomplished in order to reach a boss.

You're aware that a healthy percentage of people hate puzzles?  And that the existance of the internet effectively nullifies most forms of puzzles?  "Hmm, I can't figure this out, Google to the rescue?"

---

Originally posted by Icewhite

---

Originally posted by Rekindle

Good games can be made that do not have, at their core, death. Compelling content and puzzles could be built upon the idea that several tasks must be accomplished in order to reach a boss.

---

You're aware that a healthy percentage of people hate puzzles?  And that the existance of the internet effectively nullifies most forms of puzzles?  "Hmm, I can't figure this out, Google to the rescue?"

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
Portal and Portal 2 are both puzzle games and they are both very successful. The concept of puzzles as a mechanic is perfectly sound. Trying to implement it in a fun way is a challenge, but not an impossible one.

 

Yes, I personally love puzzles.  I understand the attraction.

But I can point you at an old, old thread from years ago where players are talking about a new puzzle/quest event that had just opened.  Some complain about the mechanics, some complain about it being too hard, some complain that the rewards aren't worthwhile, and most---are just waiting for a walkthrough to be posted somewhere.

Less than 12 hours after the event opened, the walkthrough hits the internet; and the only people who really enjoyed the whole thing are those who took the time to figure it out for themselves--a pretty small minority.

Using puzzles as a primary design feature probably only leads to a dead game, just from gamer's (as a group) displayed tendency to always seek the path of least resistance.

Of course individuals will enjoy it, I probably would.  But if your goal is for your game to make serious money...use puzzles sparingly.

---

Originally posted by Icewhite

---

Originally posted by lizardbones
Portal and Portal 2 are both puzzle games and they are both very successful. The concept of puzzles as a mechanic is perfectly sound. Trying to implement it in a fun way is a challenge, but not an impossible one.

 

---

 
Yes, I personally love puzzles.  I understand the attraction.
But I can point you at an old, old thread from years ago where players are talking about a new puzzle/quest event that had just opened.  Some complain about the mechanics, some complain about it being too hard, some complain that the rewards aren't worthwhile, and most---are just waiting for a walkthrough to be posted somewhere.
Less than 12 hours after the event opened, the walkthrough hits the internet; and the only people who really enjoyed the whole thing are those who took the time to figure it out for themselves--a pretty small minority.
Using puzzles as a primary design feature probably only leads to a dead game, just from gamer's (as a group) displayed tendency to always seek the path of least resistance.
Of course individuals will enjoy it, I probably would.  But if your goal is for your game to make serious money...use puzzles sparingly.
 

---

Originally posted by Rekindle

As an adult gamer I find it is a struggle to find entertainment playing MMOs in 2011.  As a computer programmer I am often curious about the various aspects of game design.  There was a time when the illusion of the MMO world was so great that I disappear from this world and exist in another for short times.  For many reasons, each of which are worthy of their own thread, the law of diminishing returns is fully applicable to EQ/WoW style games.  I find myself naturally more critical of the worlds I try to inhabit because the archtype is now with me.  I find myself dissatisfied with the entertainment value of current games.

 

The desire for imersion and a little harmless escapism after a honest day's work is also still with me.  The promise of seeking refuge in any of the game worlds, however, is all but lost.  I find the genre has evolved into madness with quests as compelling and deep as the stories that unfold in my 5 year old's cartoon.

 

"Little Johnnie has lost all of his eggs.  If you go and collect them all I will give you a reward".

This seems to be be best the genre is willing to offer post-1st gen for underpinning story line: a series of disjoined tasks that , by design, relate to nothing.

 

Very early in game design the notion of killing as a singular means of progression had been adapted.  I think games are boring when they don't have monsters to fight.  I however, find myself more and more disturbed as I age (36 now) with the slaying of large numbers of humans such as in a place like Scarlet Monstary.

 

In fact, I believe the imagery associated with mass humanoid death may not be entirely healthy.  I am by no means saying that killing should be removed from games but it should indeed be removed as a means of progression.  Rather, the end goal or other "power ups" along the way should provide the exp or advancement.

 

Good games can be made that do not have, at their core, death. Compelling content and puzzles could be built upon the idea that several tasks must be accomplished in order to reach a boss.

 

The last cheif annoyance is with items.  Simply put little is better.  Games that extend the rusty sword concept and offer few but powerful alternatives are better than games that have 3000 different swords all with the same stats for the warrior class at level 2.

 

Obviously MMO's are money making ventures and will appeal to the lowest common demonator of human intelligence.  As video games get more and more main steam we can expect the general intelligence level to  dumbed down accordingly.  The only way that new games will be released is if some small indy company nails it. 

 

Since video game design seems to be an expression of the zeitgeist of the genre at any given time, I can only hope that there is enough demand for a game of sophistication over dumbed down play soon.

It's not just all of what you said. It's due to MMO's being mainstream now, the communities kill immersion for anyone trying to escape reality for awhile. Hard to enjoy your gaming time when  you have people ganking/griefing 24/7 and spamming "You R teh suck noob!!11!" "Chuck Norris rules!11!" , etc, etc, etc non-stop. And yeah yeah....say turn off general chat (Which shouldn't be in MMO's anyways...should have a limited radius chat), but I shouldn't have to either.

Originally posted by jpnz

If we are talking about MMO's game mechanics, I challenge you to provide evidence that MMOs in general have 'dumbed down'.

Sure, UO/EQ had some mechanics that TOOK a long time, but wasn't mechanically more advanced than what we have now.

And last I checked, those games hasn't changed that much mechanic-wise and is still going.

If we are talking about MMOs in general, we have to look at WoW cause more than half of the MMO playerbase plays/played that game. And in WoW the mechanics actually advanced dramatically over vanilla to Cata.

You say you are a computer programmer, I'd encourage you to talk to actual DESIGNERS (shouldn't be hard since you'll probably deal with them everyday) so you can see what it means to 'design' a game. Not 'code' a game.

 I don't think I'm on the pedestal labled ' Back in the Old days' right now.  I think I'll save that one for another time.  I think this is a forward thinking tirade of mine.

I don't really care what designers think if its just a copy of what is out there.  I realize they are simply trying to run a business but every designer that has put in a wow style quest is dead to me. 

Either the designer is smart and is making dumb quests or they are dumb and they are making dumb quests.  Either way I dont want to play the current crop of games.  I feel they all have resemblance and for  the aforementioned reasons do nothing and offer no sopshistication.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Rekindle

Good games can be made that do not have, at their core, death. Compelling content and puzzles could be built upon the idea that several tasks must be accomplished in order to reach a boss.

You're aware that a healthy percentage of people hate puzzles?  And that the existance of the internet effectively nullifies most forms of puzzles?  "Hmm, I can't figure this out, Google to the rescue?"

Everyone is always looking for classifications and categories to place everything.  I realize in retrospect what I've implied with my usage of the word puzzle but its not really what I meant. 

Dragon Age had some puzzling spots. Any discerning individual could/should figure them out just like they could kill 10 bats.  The fade quests come to mind.

Puzzles could be that Freddy the NPC time only shows up certain times or someone in another part of the world has to click an object to help you.

The main gist of my point remains.  The slaying of orcs has replaced any valid reason to do so as primary game play.

I guess the majority want this simple and bland interaction.

The real problem is the lack of imagination with the devs. They rarely seems to think "how can this be more fun?" or "can we do this differently?".

They seen how other games do something and then does exactly the same thing themselves. Story, mechanics and all other aspects of the games have this problem.

In the beginning the devshad to invent all stuff themselves and therefore used trial and error to get those stuff right, now they are more interested about doing the stuff fast and simple.

I agree with OP that it sucks that the games is just about killing stuff. Pen and paper RPGs are about so much more but MMOs took only the most basic ideas and use them over and over.

I still think that sooner or later will the genre either be forced to reinvent itself or go under, and I really hope they will be better at trying out new and fun ways to get the work done instead of repeating past games forever.

Hopefully will CCPs merge with the p&p company White wolf and their upcomming game "World of darkness online" finally lead to some revitalization of the genre. ANETs GW2 might also help a bit.

Originally posted by Rekindle

Puzzles could be that Freddy the NPC time only shows up certain times or someone in another part of the world has to click an object to help you.

Wow, you really should play one of the old puzzle games of the past, like "Discworld", "Simon the sorceror", "Space quest" or something similar.

    Rekindle, I have to ask, is it really the games that have changed or is it you that has changed?  I agree with many of your points, but I also can't help but feeling from your original post that YOU are growing beyond MMOs.  Just a thought.

Originally posted by Rekindle

Obviously MMO's are money making ventures and will appeal to the lowest common demonator of human intelligence.  As video games get more and more main steam we can expect the general intelligence level to  dumbed down accordingly.  The only way that new games will be released is if some small indy company nails it. 

Bingo. I've been trying most every indy MMO I can get my hands on recently. No AAA publisher is going to make something that doesn't appeal to the lowest common denominator. I don't really blame them, its just bad business to try to appeal to something other than the largest market. So you will drop the occasional $40 or $20 on a semi-complete game, but I still find myself playing them more than the $60 I drop on Call of Duty or other AAA regurgitated titles.

Generally, these MMO's need triple A publishers for monetary reasons. Even Guild Wars, as a niche game, was funded largely by NCSoft, and they got their moneys worth from that game. Similarly, CoX games have done very well and aren't the "lowest common denominator" type of game.

But with titles like Guild Wars 2, which is funamentally changing the way MMO's are played to, at least, an impactful extent, requires a LARGE development team. Being an MMO hipster just for the hell of it is just as flawed as games making changes just for the hell of it.

"When he hears me exhorting developers to innovate, Eric Flannum, the content design lead on Guild Wars and lead designer of Sacrifice, is quick to point out that it's not enough to be different – it also has to be better. His point is that change, just for the sake of change, is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes designs endure and genres emerge for good reason, and arbitrarily changing things that work just so you can label your game as innovative can lead to failure as quickly as producing a generic also-ran."

"This is a tough industry, and only the most committed studios and publishers with solid long-term financial backing should be undertaking MMO development. I can assure you that releasing an MMO into the market before the development team is proud of it will result in writing off every penny invested in its development. The best publishers are willing to give development teams time for polish and balance. In the MMO market, there is simply no other option, and many publishers are not willing to make this commitment." - Jeff Strain, How to Creat a Successful MMO, 2007.

Another problem is just with the maturity of the genre.  Players are simply smarter than they were before.  I played UO from the beginning and it was hard to explain to someone why most weapons were gimped, and why every mage should carry a Hally.  In today´s games like WOW, there is so much analysis being done that it forces the devs to be very ´balanced´ about everything.  As soon as a new item shows up on the PTR,  20 different websites will break down the ´dps gain´ for that weapon.  If something isn´t balanced, there are 20 websites that will explain it to the devs and it will get buffed or nerfed.   This spreadsheet mentality is, in my opinion, what is killing WOW.   I recently quit, the biggest reason why is because the ´predictability´ of everything... everything is so fine-tuned, that no matter what I do, I will be in the clog of the masses.  The absolute best guilds in the world, who get payed to play the game, are only killing bosses 2-3 weeks before my family guild is.  I can predict, with reasonable accuracy, the stats that will be on items that will be released in 6 months.  I can tell you how many heroic dungeons you will have to run to get enough tokens to buy it.

The other major issue is the concept of progression.  In UO, I would log in for 3 hours...and basically accomplish nothing, but still have a great time.  In new games, the developers feel that you HAVE to progress your character or their is something wrong with their design.  Once all the developers got that ´progression mentality´.. then it was just a slippery slope to where the devs in wow decided that you have to progress your character in 30 minutes or less.

It is doubtful we can ever go back to an open world model where the devs are allowed to be creative.  Players would scream about being bored if there wasn´t something they could do in 30 minutes to progress their character.

The genre hasn't changed, rekindle i'm under the assumption you've just grown bored of it. Play some popcap games or a good singleplayer rpg. The idea of not slaying evil, animals and idiots just won't work in an MMO.

Originally posted by Azrile

It is doubtful we can ever go back to an open world model where the devs are allowed to be creative.  Players would scream about being bored if there wasn´t something they could do in 30 minutes to progress their character.

 Problem is the majority of gamers want endcap instantly.  The level progression is a total waste of time, and frankly I think a removing it would be a wise choice.  Remove levels.  Allow you to go anywhere and everywhere at all times, just face stronger enemies.  Your skills and equipment would determine your chance of success, so sure maybe 1 on 1 you can't handle a said mob, but if five of you come out you can handle them then.  Oh wait, this has been done and removed because people don't like that style of play.

People want to be told I level 29-33 at this "hub" 34-35 over there.  The vast majority of players don't want to "think" what is the next place for me to do something, I want to go here for X reason.

Now I also fail to see the logic behind this with games such as Fallout and TES: Series selling like hotcakes and them basically saying, "Here is main storyline, have fun."  Yet they sell like hotcakes and have a large amount of players at least purchased the games.  Then again its single player, not an MMO to where you are forced into making specific classes for specific roles in said "group content."  Even a large amount of sandbox players say games need to have a focus for a few to get you on track in a new game to hook themepark players.  Maybe worlds just aren't immersive because they are to small, we level to fast, and content is forced down our throats at a staggering pace because there isn't anything else to do but "kill, kill, kill" for more loot only to do it over again and again and again.