Originally posted by rdash

Complexity, for lack of better word, is bad. Depth is entirely different story, but you can have plenty of depth in simple game - ever played chess or poker? Ideal game achieves depth without requiring player to spend few hours reading manual before he can have fun. History of games (not only video games, or MMOs in particular) lacks success stories of complex games, unless we're talking about exceptions confirming the rule. So no, players in general don't want complexity - they want depth and accessibility.

Couldn't agree more, you explaned it better that I did :)

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Meowhead

Originally posted by Loktofeit

I'm not aware of data to support tnat those players do not normally return to their previous games. Do you have examples of where 'the damage was done'  and the players did not return to the original game or cancelled their subs to the original game?

 Any time you have people quitting something, of course there's going to be a percentage of those people that never go back.

That's exacerbated by the sub system, where going back takes effort and money.

You're working on the assumption they cancelled their existing subscription. I was asking for data that supports that claim.

Requesting data that can't possibly be obtained to "prove" your arguement is sort of a cheap theatrical trick really. (probably some sort of cool latin phrase to describe this)

Here's some data, with few exceptions, (Lineage 2, DAOC, WOW  and EVE) I have never gone back to a MMORPG that I quit playing. 

Especially in these more modern times, I never see the need to return to a previous theme park game, better to just pick up the next one coming down the pike, they all play pretty much the same anyways.

I wasn't 'proving' anything, only asking them for data that supported what they were claiming as it seems to contradict standard consumer behaviour when it comes to entertainment services. It's interesting that you find such a reasonable request to be a cheap theatrical trick. Regarding your 'data', you are talking about a different issue entirely, one that I did not question. However, on that topic, if you are an example of the norm, WOW must not only have extremely low churn but an amazing retention rate. :)

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Kyleran

Originally posted by Loktofeit

Originally posted by Meowhead

Originally posted by Loktofeit

I'm not aware of data to support tnat those players do not normally return to their previous games. Do you have examples of where 'the damage was done'  and the players did not return to the original game or cancelled their subs to the original game?

 Any time you have people quitting something, of course there's going to be a percentage of those people that never go back.

That's exacerbated by the sub system, where going back takes effort and money.

You're working on the assumption they cancelled their existing subscription. I was asking for data that supports that claim.

Requesting data that can't possibly be obtained to "prove" your arguement is sort of a cheap theatrical trick really. (probably some sort of cool latin phrase to describe this)

Here's some data, with few exceptions, (Lineage 2, DAOC, WOW  and EVE) I have never gone back to a MMORPG that I quit playing. 

Especially in these more modern times, I never see the need to return to a previous theme park game, better to just pick up the next one coming down the pike, they all play pretty much the same anyways.

I wasn't 'proving' anything, only asking them for data that supported what they were claiming as it seems to contradict standard consumer behaviour when it comes to entertainment services. It's interesting that you find such a reasonable request to be a cheap theatrical trick. Regarding your 'data', you are talking about a different issue entirely, one that I did not question. However, on that topic, if you are an example of the norm, WOW must not only have extremely low churn but an amazing retention rate. :)

Well there are many people who claim to have been subbed to WOW since it launched, in fact, my son is one of them, except for a very brief period, like 3 months he's been a subscriber since it went live back in 2004.  He was 12 at the time.(of course, he just told me the other day I could shut his account off now, but I'm waiting to see if he changes his mind)

While I can't prove this next statement, it is my belief, based on empirical observation of the world around me that there are probably more people out there who have tried WOW and are no longer subscribers, than there are current subscribers to the game.

As for my comment about the trick, you asked the poster for data you knew he couldn't provide, would have been better to just come out and say such data didn't exist.

Originally posted by rdash

Complexity, for lack of better word, is bad. Depth is entirely different story, but you can have plenty of depth in simple game - ever played chess or poker? Ideal game achieves depth without requiring player to spend few hours reading manual before he can have fun. History of games (not only video games, or MMOs in particular) lacks success stories of complex games, unless we're talking about exceptions confirming the rule. So no, players in general don't want complexity - they want depth and accessibility.

A Sirlin reader :P

Complexity for its own sake is generally bad. Complexity that adds depth is ok.

However, most games have not been complex or deep at all recently. I would love more complex games to come out so I can actually see if it has depth rather then the bland, unspiced, dry, food we have been getting force fed.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Yes. Its that easy. Players run out of things to do when they are not challenged enough.

As good a working theory as any, I suppose.  You have an inexhaustable supply of theories.

But a quick working question:

Is it possible to challenge a veteran using MMO mechanics?  Or does their very vast experience itself stand directly in the path of their enjoyment?

Not much left to learn after fifteen years.  We're talking senior management, in most careers.

Maybe they try and discard game after game because they know the raid dance and they know the PvP tricks and there just isn't enough new to challenge them in the long term.

I'm afraid that all you've done Lobo, is reach a "you're just burned out" dismissal, but via a different route; new way to blame it on the developer, instead of the player who just spent far too damn much time on a single hobby.

Actually I think for longevity players just want to be able to dynamically interact with other players. The mechanics don't have to be complex, they just need to allow for different people to be able to interact in different ways, thus providing longevity.

The fact is mmorpgs have become far more solo orientated in that the mechanics of the games have been clearly separated and no longer impact upon one another. When you do this you restrict the ways players can influence one another, kill the meta game and make longevity completely and utterly dependant upon predetermined and highly scripted systems. Systems which are available in other genres of games, systems which are done far better in other genres of games.

Without dynamic worlds, meta games and communities what do mmorpgs offer? Separated pvp and gear grinds. You can find far superior instanced pvp in other gaming genres which leaves gear grinds. Hence the shiny chase and hence the reason people jump from one mmo to the next big thing, for teh shinies.

WoW stands out because it is the best at what it does. Every mmo trying to follow the same formula just gets trounced by WoW. The trouble is AAA publishers want money, so they chase the WoW crowd, so they build WoWlite and then they create a product which is no different to WoW (actually worse most of the time) so it bombs.

Until we get games with a player driven meta game, or we get games that are better at instanced pvp/pve than single player/MOBA/FPS games, then there wont be any longevity in my opinion.

No. Players do not want complexity.

Players want depth.

There is a big, big, big difference.

No one (in their right mind) wants to read a 44 page manual to figure out how to move from point A to point B.

Many, if not MOST want there to be engaging activities with both accessibility and DEPTH once they get to point B.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.

If I had penny for each : "Players want streamlined , acessible content" game theory ... that always results in poor content ridden boredom fest like SWTOR.

Yes. Its that easy. Players run out of things to do when they are not challenged enough.

 

Unfortunately only "complex" MMO games today are either rhutless PVP oriented (like EVE) or below todays standards (either too old or made by low budget indy developers)

 

When will developers understand this? Make a game that challenges player. That you have to research online. Ask people for help. Figure out things.

Not just grind on autopilot with straight line road ahead of you...

 

So far , no game is taking this challenge... Shame

 

TSW  ????

Well many can argue that its not a perfect implementation , it does seem to hit a number of your items

- difficult, complex, requires help or research in some places

I am certain many people will now dogpile on to disagree .. but thats my take on it.

Originally posted by Icewhite

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Yes. Its that easy. Players run out of things to do when they are not challenged enough.

As good a working theory as any, I suppose. 

But a quick working question:

Is it possible to challenge a veteran using MMO mechanics?  Or does their very vast experience itself stand directly in the path of their enjoyment?

Not much left to learn after fifteen years.

Spell learning from AC challenged anyone. It was a system designed so that not one person could solve the formula for everyne else because each character had a different recipie. Even back then not everyone wanted to go through the puzzle solving nature of the system for neccesary spells....and people shied away from spell casters to fighters because of it. It was eventually changed.

That is not to say that I did not like the system and I took part in helping solve some of the patterns for the community. I still strongly miss challenge from non combat areas. I feel like that is what an MMO should be strong in and instead most games have zero activities with depth that is not combat. And that is facepalm worthy.

Originally posted by Lobotomist

So far , no game is taking this challenge... Shame 

ArchAge might be the upcoming chalenge we're looking for. Till then I'll play older, a bit challenging MMO's (Vanguard right now).

Originally posted by BadSpock

No. Players do not want complexity.

Players want depth.

There is a big, big, big difference.

No one (in their right mind) wants to read a 44 page manual to figure out how to move from point A to point B.

Many, if not MOST want there to be engaging activities with both accessibility and DEPTH once they get to point B.

 

 

I would rather a 44 page manual to figure it out then the auto pilot stuff we have now. It might have depth and as such I am willing to try it out. But instant transportation is not a plus to me. It is a huge negative.

Originally posted by DarkPony

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Games. Not all games , but multiplayer online games , must be complex in order to survive.

Ok, prove it.

The lack of truly big success stories of easy mode, hand holding mmorpgs with cookie cutter themepark formula's should be plenty of evidence I reckon. (WOW arguably falls in that category and kills my statement but then again ... it's also kind of complex. As to really do well in WOW it requires a lot of organization and / or mastery).

But personally I'd go a step further and say that any game that aims to hold a player's attention for a really long time, should be complex. Whether it is single or multiplayer, rts or rpg, etc.

It is not like complex and hard MMOS didn't release just that they didn't survive or never got popular enough to sustain themselves. You are  a smart guy you know the titles i am talking about.

Even today a themepark MMO made keeping casual player in mind would still do much much better than a complex or hard MMO. Why even bother arguing? just wait till GW2 and AA release and then tell us which one makes the most money and that is all that matter when it comes to MMOS..money / profit.

I think the OP confused Complexity with Challenge

A game can be extremely Complex but with no penalities for failing, therefore it becomes an unnecessay confusing puzzle.

Dark Soul became a Challenging game because it has harsh Penalty for failing.

When you can revive how ever many times you want, death becomes just an tool for stealth runs.

When you don't have to worry about survival, you lack the interest to survive in your games.

Many players have stated that they don't want to have a second Job as playing a video game, so when you start treating a game as Casual media, it becomes a casual media.

MMORPG used to be something that Gamers that wants challenges that can only be completed by many like minded players would go and play.

But now, MMORPG are just an log in for 3 minutes, log out.

Personally I am an Casual player, I do have a Daytime Job Monday to Saturday, yes I only get one day off. But if i want to level and Its a game that Interests me, I do play online for hours on end on my day off.

But its my choice, its my decision to play and neglect my friends, I decided to stay online on my one day off and level like crazy.

MMORPG needs to go back to their Hardcore ways.

Originally posted by BadSpock

No. Players do not want complexity.

Players want depth.

There is a big, big, big difference.

No one (in their right mind) wants to read a 44 page manual to figure out how to move from point A to point B.

Many, if not MOST want there to be engaging activities with both accessibility and DEPTH once they get to point B.

 

 

I read over a 100 page guide on how to mine in EVE effectively, and then decided never to do mining.

In fact, before starting out in EVE, I literally read 8 game guides on everything from general information to PVP and I kept those next to me for years, re-reading them regularly as I got a better grasp of the concepts within the game

But then one might argue that most people who enjoy playing EVE really aren't in their right minds.

Originally posted by BadSpock

No. Players do not want complexity.

Players want depth.

There is a big, big, big difference.

No one (in their right mind) wants to read a 44 page manual to figure out how to move from point A to point B.

Many, if not MOST want there to be engaging activities with both accessibility and DEPTH once they get to point B.

Listen to the man: Depth - not complexity.

Originally posted by BadSpock

No. Players do not want complexity.

Players want depth.

There is a big, big, big difference.

No one (in their right mind) wants to read a 44 page manual to figure out how to move from point A to point B.

Many, if not MOST want there to be engaging activities with both accessibility and DEPTH once they get to point B.

 

 

By complexity mean depth. Not as you translate , complexity into hard to understand systems.

Complexity , as you always learn something new. And even after playin the game for 6 months you can uncover a new way of doing something.

Game where you actually need to look for clues and "how to" guides. Something that challenges your mind and creativity.

What I like about Minecraft is that it offers depth and complexity in a user friendly package.

I would appreciate that in a AAA MMO.

At this point, I am quite sure that I will never again subscribe to a game that is shiny, yet shallow. Unless, they bring something new to the table, I am probably done with themeparks. Every single themepark released since WoW was really poor, for me.

I am more interested in the depth that sandboxes offer (e.g. Wurm online, MO, DF). The problem I have with these games is that their userfriendliness is 0. There seem to be themeparks like WoW on one side and sandboxes like those I mentioned on the other side in terms of how easy it is to get to the game, how well the gameplay is etc. At the moment, I miss games that would offer easiness of themepark combined with some of the depth of sandboxes.

I am looking forward to ArcheAge which is often referred to as "Sandpark". From the videos I have seen, it seems that the gameplay will be smooth and easy, the graphics looks also good and most of all, it seems to offer a complex crafting system, building of entire citites, construction of boats, growing trees and your own food, etc. Something like this seems attractive to me now. As I mentioned in a threat I previously created, I would like to see easiness and depth of minecraft in a full scale AAA MMO.

Opinion / preferences of one person are not really that imporant though...

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by BadSpock
 

Listen to the man: Depth - not complexity.

They are not wholly imcompatible you do realise of course? The problem with mmorpgs deriving depth from purely simplcity is that other genres do it alot better.
 

You could derive depth from a simple mechanic, the trouble is single player, small scale multiplayer games do this far, far better than mmorpgs.

Alternatively you can derive depth from simple systems which interlink in complex ways. This is easily done through simple mechanics which interplink to allow the players to drive the dynamic complex system, ala meta game.

A complex system does not have to be about 100 button hotbars.

As long as mmorpgs try to do what single player/MOBA/FPS games do, and they do it poorly. As opposed to focus on community, dynamic meta games. Then there will be little longevity outside of someone coming up with a truly amazing shiny grind.

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by BadSpock
 

Listen to the man: Depth - not complexity.

They are not wholly imcompatible you do realise of course? The problem with mmorpgs deriving depth from purely simplcity is that other genres do it alot better.
 

 

You could derive depth from a simple mechanic, the trouble is single player, small scale multiplayer games do this far, far better than mmorpgs.

 

Alternatively you can derive depth from simple systems which interlink in complex ways. This is easily done through simple mechanics which interplink to allow the players to drive the dynamic complex system, ala meta game.

 

A complex system does not have to be about 100 button hotbars.

 

As long as mmorpgs try to do what single player/MOBA/FPS games do, and they do it poorly. As opposed to focus on community, dynamic meta games. Then there will be little longevity outside of someone coming up with a truly amazing shiny grind.

Those are two completely different things. Complexity does not make a game deep in the same way simplicity does not make a game shallow. You can have a complicated game yet a very shallow one and very simple yet deep game. Therefore a game can be either deep or shallow regardless of complexity. Complexity can be excessive whereas you can hardly have too much depth.

Unless you are prepared to make an argument like: "Complexity ensures some level of depth". Which is highly debatable. Sure may leave room for depth (I'm not ready to admit this either) but you can easily ruin a complex game with poor balancing which, in turn, will lead to a shallow game. But this debate is for another thread I think.

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by bunnyhopper

Originally posted by Quirhid

Originally posted by BadSpock
 

Those are two completely different things. Complexity does not make a game deep in the same way simplicity does not make a game shallow. You can have a complicated game yet a very shallow one and very simple yet deep game. Therefore a game can be either deep or shallow regardless of complexity. Complexity can be excessive whereas you can hardly have too much depth.

Unless you are prepared to make an argument like: "Complexity ensures some level of depth". Which is highly debatable. Sure may leave room for depth (I'm not ready to admit this either) but you can easily ruin a complex game with poor balancing which, in turn, will lead to a shallow game. But this debate is for another thread I think.

I got the impression that some people may have been looking at "complexity" as though it purely meant having an overly tedious system. Regardless, whilst complexity doesn't always lead to depth (nor does simplicity), let's look why this debate is relative to this thread.

Whilst you can derive depth from the most basic of mechanics, even in isolation. This is something that is done well outside of the remit of the mmorpg genre. Single player games and small scale multiplayer games are simply far, far superior to mmorpgs in terms of generating quality depth (and importantly longevity) through simple mechanics/enclosed systems.

Part of the reason most mmorpgs have little to no longevity is due to the fact that they are becoming more like (or trying to become more like), enclosed, simple system, small scale multiplayer games. They partition off the game mechanics from one another. Now this would be fine IF said mmorpgs where able to provide the same quality in this style of gaming as games within the genres dedicated to such enclosed systems. The trouble is they are piss poor at it in comparison, hence no longevity.

Now an mmorpg can have simple base mechanics, which then interact with one another. This allows for dynamic, player driven systems. The complexity comes from the player interaction, something other gaming genres cannot do anywhere near as well. This creates longevity.

When mmorpgs stop trying to be other genres, when they focus on what is special about their own genre (the ability to bring masses of players together into online communities), then they will again have longevity.

Dedicated games are better at generating depth and fun (and hence longevity) from simple mechanics than mmorpgs are which try to be a catch all to a certain extent. MMORPGS are better off deriving longevity from a complex web of interacting agents (players). The mechanics for each part of the web are not complex, but the over all web is. There is no whacking great manual needed, no one views all the complexity, they just interact and react with it dynamically.