The Recipe of Failure:

1.  Heavy PVP focus.  The message boards clamor for it, players gripe about there not being enough PVP, but when they get what they ask for....  Empty servers are the result.  Strong PVP focus fritters away community and group cooperation, and players leave in droves after the short-lived thrill of PVP wears off and the annoyance of being ganked sets in.

2.  Linear-style gameplay.  This is like watching a movie... over and over and over and over again.  Worse, it restricts the feeling of player freedom and makes the gaming experience feel contrived.

3.  In-game tutorial newbie zones.   Limits the feeling of player freedom and is a hit upon immersion; just doesn't feel real, even in a fantasy environment.

4.  Complex interface.  The only challenge players should face should be related to strategy, never to how to interact with the game mechancis.  Like checkers and chess, games should be simple, but strategies should be deep.

5.  Heavily instanced.  Too much instancing separates the players from their in-game community, and community is really half the fun in playing an MMO.  Instancing should be looked upon as a necessary evil and never a "feature" in MMO design.

6.  Overpowered graphics.  If an average computer cannot run a game on near-full graphics, players will be miffed.  Much better is to update graphics over the years to fit the computers that are out, rather than to create memory-intensive graphics that players may never see.

7.  Slow combat, clunky movement.  Animations must be fast and smooth in order to give the player a feeling of control, at least over his or her own character.  Clunky movement or uber-slow combat display a lack of refinement in the game's execution and raise questions about other aspects of the game.

8.  Painless failure.  Lack of a death penalty, while taking away the sting of death the 1% of the time a player dies, always waters down the thrill of victory the other 99% of the time.  Levels and items become bland, even a given.  Dungeons are not feared and the overall game world is not respected.  There must be some degree of "sting" to dying, perhaps not overcapicitating, but enough to cause a player to curse or slap his or her keyboard.  The ire and angst of dying will soon subside after a few moments when the player returns to the exicting gameplay for the rush one gets with taking risks.

Think about it; playing an MMO without a death penalty that stings is like riding a bicycle with training wheels on it.  You might never fall down, but you'll never know the feeling of riding upright on your own.

9.  Perma-death.  A rare mechanic in an MMO, but why have it? Why?  Why?

10.  Themepark world.  Designing world around players instead of NPC's.  In order to feel real and immersive, the game world must make sense, and in order to makes sense it must be desigend around NPC (Non-player character) civilizations or communities.  The Barbarians are still Barbarians because they live in forsaken wastes or frozen lands.  The Human port city thrives because it has a deep sea harbor and sits next to a river that is a major thoroughfare for trade.  The Elves are whispered as legends because they live far off in a remote woodland that adventurers hardly dare enter.  Stuff like that.

Give players a world and they will want to escape into it, explore it, become part of it.  EVERY TIME players log into an MMO, they should feel like they are escaping into a beloved world such as Middle Earth (or similar) and not logging into an arena or theme park.

11.  No bastions of safety.  Players should view the game world as perilous and challenging, and should breath a sigh of relief when arriving at a remote village or a city.  Bastions of safety are places to train, sell, group up, log into or out of.  The countryside should be too dangerous to do those things and therefore respected by the players. 

This will give more meaning to places as islands of civilization in a vast wild and cruel land.

I could list other stuff, but this is enough, and this comprises my checklist to identify things to avoid before buying another MMO.

Good Stuff /Bump.

Feeding the Achievement Whores

The more you reward people for doing an action, the less likely they will be to do that action on their own. People become focused on the reward and stop playing the game. We need games to be designed around having fun and playing, not just chasing the next carrot.

Good God, someone finally nailed it.

Is this the same forum? Is the sky falling?!

Well, now that some of  the failure has been identified, how about we start outlining some solutions? I'll throw one in... with my own brand of highly flawed philosophy as a treat.

On PvP:

• Why?
• Play-To-Win
• The Noble Fight
  
  • A solution?
• End

Why?

Why PvP? Why is it a 'must' for MMORPGs?

Well most cases for it would be that it opens a new level of competition for players to test their skills against one another. However, when you think about it, that isn't playing for fun or for a noble cause; that's playing to win. Having fun is enjoying yourself regardless of the outcome of whatever you're doing, so if you're playing to win, you cannot have 'fun' unless you are victorious.

As for why people want to have PvP, I can't place a finger on it. I'm not a psychology major. Maybe those people just enjoy playing to win more than playing for fun?

Play-To-Win

So what makes PvP a play-to-win scenario?

I think it has everything to do with the distribution of rewards and the orientation of goals. In a tournament style of PvP, the winner takes all spoils, be it points or looted equipment. That is the goal: to win so that you can get better and win more and prove to everyone else that you are better than them. A selfish, un-fun goal, but the very nature of the reward enforces this mentality.

So change the goals and the activity can become fun. In real life battle, it doesn't matter how many head shots you scored or how many enemy soldiers you took down before you were killed yourself. What matters is keeping your friends and country alive by fighting for and believing in them.

The Noble Fight

How can we change the goal to reflect a more selfless interest?

What cause are players fighting for? Right now, themselves and their internet egos. So what if there was something bigger than that which gave the fight more meaning? Why not take a page from the U.S. Army and examine what it means to be a patriot of that country and fight for the rights that one holds dear?

Perhaps factions that operate more like countries instead of the the hollow, looming presence they pose in current games would be a starting point. Say for example, if a faction is conquered, the losing players will find themselves under a new flag with penalties incurred upon what they had taken for granted.

So the purpose for fighting other players and factions is not about being better than everyone else, but instead about preserving what you have and perhaps, if imperialism kicks in, desiring more.

How to go about implementing such a system isn't too tricky (using map mechanics similar to Civilizations), but you would have to make sure that areas couldn't be too easily captured or lost, as to give a sense of accomplishment for each captured or defended zone. Unfortunately, this might influence linearity in level design.

On another note, this system could blend with game updates interestingly. Say, for example, the most prosperous nations would be rewarded with special monthly rewards, like new technologies and special powers. Other rewards could be given for how well the nation is run and how happy the citizens are...

Which probably raises some other questions, like; will players be able to start and control these nations? Can there be revolutions? Can players kill others indiscriminately (open PvP)? Are there laws enforced with game mechanics (guard spawns, auto-punishment, etc.)? Are governments designed to be static, flexible, player-run, or developer-managed?

I dunno, but the bigger question is: is that the scope of the game?

Wrap Up

I think a heavy PvP focus in general is a fine idea, yet the approach is all wrong because the goals are the same as PvE where you "kill your target and get stuff", like a pinata. Players as targets are not pinatas, or at least I don't think they should be. Enemy players should be threats to your faction, and the temporary removal of them means less immediate threat.

This "push buttons, recieve candy" behavior needs to be fixed if PvP is to be fun for all parties involved (not just the victor), and I think a military-minded approach could work.

I'd love to see a fight start in a 'barbarian' city.  then have the honor guards come up and say "I don't know how you city folk solve your differances, but around here we have standards" :casts debuff that removes armor and weapons and a script that gathers nearby NPCs to watch:

I always figured that it'd be something funny to add to a game.

Surprisingly I agree with all of your points. 

Originally posted by paulscott

I'd love to see a fight start in a 'barbarian' city.  then have the honor guards come up and say "I don't know how you city folk solve your differances, but around here we have standards" :casts debuff that removes armor and weapons and a script that gathers nearby NPCs to watch:

 

I always figured that it'd be something funny to add to a game.

I can imagine that, and it's hilarious.

Just it hurts to think about how easily abused it could become, like say if a "fight" included an entire army. Magically, they're all naked and everyone's staring at them.

There goes the raid, but fun times were had regardless, I suppose.

I'm such a killjoy.

By the way, nice sig.

Much as I dislike PVP and the mentality it fosters, it's been carrying MMOs since Ultima Online.

Alot of your points sound like a Brad McQuaid blog unfortunately.  EQ had a pretty heavy death penalty but did that stop players from dying and "learning their lesson"?  They still died and the outdoor zones became jampacked with grinders because people didn't want to waste time with CR in dungeons.

Originally posted by pencilrick

The Recipe of Failure:

1.  Heavy PVP focus.  The message boards clamor for it, players gripe about there not being enough PVP, but when they get what they ask for....  Empty servers are the result.  Strong PVP focus fritters away community and group cooperation, and players leave in droves after the short-lived thrill of PVP wears off and the annoyance of being ganked sets in.

2.  Linear-style gameplay.  This is like watching a movie... over and over and over and over again.  Worse, it restricts the feeling of player freedom and makes the gaming experience feel contrived.

3.  In-game tutorial newbie zones.   Limits the feeling of player freedom and is a hit upon immersion; just doesn't feel real, even in a fantasy environment.

5.  Heavily instanced.  Too much instancing separates the players from their in-game community, and community is really half the fun in playing an MMO.  Instancing should be looked upon as a necessary evil and never a "feature" in MMO design.

6.  Overpowered graphics.  If an average computer cannot run a game on near-full graphics, players will be miffed.  Much better is to update graphics over the years to fit the computers that are out, rather than to create memory-intensive graphics that players may never see.

8.  Painless failure.  Lack of a death penalty, while taking away the sting of death the 1% of the time a player dies, always waters down the thrill of victory the other 99% of the time.  Levels and items become bland, even a given.  Dungeons are not feared and the overall game world is not respected.  There must be some degree of "sting" to dying, perhaps not overcapicitating, but enough to cause a player to curse or slap his or her keyboard.  The ire and angst of dying will soon subside after a few moments when the player returns to the exicting gameplay for the rush one gets with taking risks.

Obviously Guild Wars is the exception then? It still has about 4.5 million players, just because it is different. Different as in, heavy instanced, heavy PvP focus (of course, it is balanced in Guild Wars, some PvP games aren't even balanced... ). It has a tutorial 'zone', just to explain the controls etc. which is fine, as everything is instanced. It is pretty linear, at least the PvE is, just follow the storyline, little or no freedom. The graphics are great (and they're already 4 years old), and even old computers can run it on max, I still don't know how they did it, but the performance is great! And there is almost no death penalty, if you die, you just wasted your time. 

So it's not really what they do with the game, it's how they do it!  The problem is that a lot of games just want some features, they make them, but never polish them. But it is perfectly possible to create great games following your recipe. ;)

Edit; I said guild wars has about 1.5 million... Coming from 5 million last year, that wouldn't be a good example ;). Had to be 4.5 million. 

Originally posted by erandur

Originally posted by pencilrick

The Recipe of Failure:

1.  Heavy PVP focus.  The message boards clamor for it, players gripe about there not being enough PVP, but when they get what they ask for....  Empty servers are the result.  Strong PVP focus fritters away community and group cooperation, and players leave in droves after the short-lived thrill of PVP wears off and the annoyance of being ganked sets in.

2.  Linear-style gameplay.  This is like watching a movie... over and over and over and over again.  Worse, it restricts the feeling of player freedom and makes the gaming experience feel contrived.

3.  In-game tutorial newbie zones.   Limits the feeling of player freedom and is a hit upon immersion; just doesn't feel real, even in a fantasy environment.

5.  Heavily instanced.  Too much instancing separates the players from their in-game community, and community is really half the fun in playing an MMO.  Instancing should be looked upon as a necessary evil and never a "feature" in MMO design.

6.  Overpowered graphics.  If an average computer cannot run a game on near-full graphics, players will be miffed.  Much better is to update graphics over the years to fit the computers that are out, rather than to create memory-intensive graphics that players may never see.

8.  Painless failure.  Lack of a death penalty, while taking away the sting of death the 1% of the time a player dies, always waters down the thrill of victory the other 99% of the time.  Levels and items become bland, even a given.  Dungeons are not feared and the overall game world is not respected.  There must be some degree of "sting" to dying, perhaps not overcapicitating, but enough to cause a player to curse or slap his or her keyboard.  The ire and angst of dying will soon subside after a few moments when the player returns to the exicting gameplay for the rush one gets with taking risks.

Obviously Guild Wars is the exception then? It still has about 1.5 million players, just because it is different. Different as in, heavy instanced, heavy PvP focus (of course, it is balanced in Guild Wars, some PvP games aren't even balanced... ). It has a tutorial 'zone', just to explain the controls etc. which is fine, as everything is instanced. It is pretty linear, at least the PvE is, just follow the storyline, little or no freedom. The graphics are great (and they're already 4 years old), and even old computers can run it on max, I still don't know how they did it, but the performance is great! And there is almost no death penalty, if you die, you just wasted your time. 

So it's not really what they do with the game, it's how they do it!  The problem is that a lot of games just want some features, they make them, but never polish them. But it is perfectly possible to create great games following your recipe. ;)

A priceless reply. Hillarious.

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Good God, someone finally nailed it.

Wow, I agree, the OP's post was spectacular.

Is this the same forum? Is the sky falling?!

 

Well, now that some of  the failure has been identified, how about we start outlining some solutions? I'll throw one in... with my own brand of highly flawed philosophy as a treat.

 

On PvP:

• Why?
• Play-To-Win
• The Noble Fight
  
  • A solution?
• End

Why?

Why PvP? Why is it a 'must' for MMORPGs?

Well most cases for it would be that it opens a new level of competition for players to test their skills against one another. However, when you think about it, that isn't playing for fun or for a noble cause (you're assuming an interest in the roleplaying aspects of these games, and frankly, I think it's missing with these types of players); that's playing to win. Having fun is enjoying yourself regardless of the outcome of whatever you're doing, so if you're playing to win, you cannot have 'fun' unless you are victorious.

As for why people want to have PvP, I can't place a finger on it. I'm not a psychology major. Maybe those people just enjoy playing to win more than playing for fun?

Yeah, I don't totally "get it" either.  For ME, PvP has to have a meaning in the game.  If I want to just fight for the sake of fighting itself....I'll just play Unreal or CS Source.

 

Play-To-Win

So what makes PvP a play-to-win scenario?

I think it has everything to do with the distribution of rewards and the orientation of goals. In a tournament style of PvP, the winner takes all spoils, be it points or looted equipment. That is the goal: to win so that you can get better and win more and prove to everyone else that you are better than them. A selfish, un-fun goal, but the very nature of the reward enforces this mentality.

So change the goals and the activity can become fun. In real life battle, it doesn't matter how many head shots you scored or how many enemy soldiers you took down before you were killed yourself. What matters is keeping your friends and country alive by fighting for and believing in them.

Here is part of what I see as the "issue" with PvP in MMOs, and why there seems to be such a "rift" between the "PvPers" and the "non-PvPers."  We're making the assumption that people who are playing an MMORPG, are actually wanting the RPG part of that.  Not all of them do.  In MY opinion, most of that crowd, would probably be a lot happier and more "fulfilled" if they just played an FPS.  But the MMO aspect appeals to them, because...well...what's the point of having an "uber epeen" if you can't brag about it and show it off?

Trust me, if you start adding  roleplaying/lore-driven/story-centric REASONS to PvP in most MMOrpgs....the "hardcore" PvPers...will bi*** and moan about it.  They will consider it "unnecessary fluff" and something that gets in the WAY of their OMGWTFBBQPWNAGE.  /sigh

 

 

The Noble Fight

How can we change the goal to reflect a more selfless interest?

^^That's something I have often wondered about.

What cause are players fighting for? Right now, themselves and their internet egos.  (Which is NO different than the "reasoning" for playing CS Source or somet other FPS.) So what if there was something bigger than that which gave the fight more meaning? Why not take a page from the U.S. Army and examine what it means to be a patriot of that country and fight for the rights that one holds dear?

Again....an assumption that people are interested in stories, lore, and roleplaying.  And you'd THINK that would be TRUE, being they're playing an mmo R P G but I'm not seeing a lot of people that appear interested in "reasons" when I read what PvPers post.  This is why I don't understand why they don't all go play an FPS together.  O.o

Perhaps factions that operate more like countries instead of the the hollow, looming presence they pose in current games would be a starting point. Say for example, if a faction is conquered, the losing players will find themselves under a new flag with penalties incurred upon what they had taken for granted.

So the purpose for fighting other players and factions is not about being better than everyone else, but instead about preserving what you have and perhaps, if imperialism kicks in, desiring more.

How to go about implementing such a system isn't too tricky (using map mechanics similar to Civilizations), but you would have to make sure that areas couldn't be too easily captured or lost, as to give a sense of accomplishment for each captured or defended zone. Unfortunately, this might influence linearity in level design.

On another note, this system could blend with game updates interestingly. Say, for example, the most prosperous nations would be rewarded with special monthly rewards, like new technologies and special powers. Other rewards could be given for how well the nation is run and how happy the citizens are... (I'm guessing you play Civ IV? :D)

Which probably raises some other questions, like; will players be able to start and control these nations? Can there be revolutions? Can players kill others indiscriminately (open PvP)? Are there laws enforced with game mechanics (guard spawns, auto-punishment, etc.)? Are governments designed to be static, flexible, player-run, or developer-managed?

I dunno, but the bigger question is: is that the scope of the game?

 

Wrap Up

I think a heavy PvP focus in general is a fine idea, yet the approach is all wrong because the goals are the same as PvE where you "kill your target and get stuff", like a pinata.  (I think this stems from a generation of gamers that grew up in a "microwave/drivethru" society with instant gratification.  Many of them have never had to save money to buy things, or WAIT and be PATIENT for much of ANYthing.  So asking them to do that in their GAMES....not likely to work, sadly.) Players as targets are not pinatas, or at least I don't think they should be. Enemy players should be threats to your faction, and the temporary removal of them means less immediate threat.

This "push buttons, recieve candy" behavior needs to be fixed if PvP is to be fun for all parties involved (not just the victor), and I think a military-minded approach could work.

GREAT comments.  I just don't think that the vast majority of today's gaming market, is ready for anything that requires much thinking or effort.  They seem to pretty much WANT the rush of the quick kills in 15 minute scenarios and battlegrounds, etc.  If they can't have what they want....and RIGHT THE FECK NOW....they get whiney and cranky and file petitions about things taking too long, and (a good example....) the zombie invasion getting in the way of their power-leveling to 70, etc., etc.

It's almost as if trying to put any RPG elements into an MMORPG...has become TABOO.  /sigh

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

 GREAT comments.  I just don't think that the vast majority of today's gaming market, is ready for anything that requires much thinking or effort.  They seem to pretty much WANT the rush of the quick kills in 15 minute scenarios and battlegrounds, etc.  If they can't have what they want....and RIGHT THE FECK NOW....they get whiney and cranky and file petitions about things taking too long, and (a good example....) the zombie invasion getting in the way of their power-leveling to 70, etc., etc.

It's almost as if trying to put any RPG elements into an MMORPG...has become TABOO.  /sigh

I'm telling ya, you're not wasting your time by reading Plasuma's comments.  But so as not to make his head too big, I think I'll reply to yours.  You may be right when you say that today's gamers are not ready for more involved, thought provoking MMOs, but if that is so, I think it's due mainly because the devs have made it that way.  Therefore, it is also their job to make gamers willing to be more patient when it comes to playing them.

Let's go back to EQ.  I almost always go back to that game because I think it is the father of the vast majority of MMOs we see on the market today.  It really redefined the gaming world.  Before EQ, there were certainly video games that were addictive, but I doubt it was anything like what we saw in EQ.  It wasn't called Evercrack for nothing.  Speaking from my own experience, I know I had been semi-addicted to other games myself, but again, nothing like what I experienced in EQ.  There were games where I would stay up playing late into the evening, but eventually I would get tired and go to sleep.  In EQ, I would actually sacrifice sleep (and work and nourishment) so I could keep on playing.

So starting from there, I think the devs of future games looked at EQ, saw its enormous popularity, but also saw the enormous time sink required to play it.  And they must have thought, "How can we remove the time sink, but keep the fun."  And that's why today we see limited or no death penalties, superficial dungeons and kill "X" number of mobs for instant rewards.

But here's the problem.  For most of us (at least for me) who broke our teeth on EQ, removing those challenges in order to save time also removed the fun.  Take away the challenge, you take away the incentive to play.  And that's why most older gamers get bored with today's MMOs very quickly.

After playing EQ and realizing the enormous time commitment required to play it, I have always believed that if you don't have enough time to play an MMO that challenges you, you probably should stay away from it altogether.  I'm a fan of going in the opposite direction that companies are taking today's games.  More challenge, deeper dungeons, long thought provoking quests, etc.  And if I don't have the time to play,that's my problem.  But don't look for it to happen any time soon.  We live in a very fast-paced society and today's MMOs reflect that.  I'm not looking for a game anytime soon that caters to my desires.

It's really simple. As the Guild Wars argument proved, the "recipe of failure" doesn't lead to failure at all. It leads to astronimical success (although some things are just plain bad design, like shitty graphics optimization). It leads to World of Warcraft levels of success, because that's basically a description of the main design elements of World of Warcraft.

Now, I'm not saying you're wrong, because it's also the description of the many post-WoW failed MMOGs we've been seeing emerge. And that's because they're attempting to emulate World of Warcraft. What developers of MMOGs need to learn is that other markets exist, and history has proven them to be more lucrative than the market they're shooting for, because history has proven that market to be damn near full.

I have to agree with 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10, but for the rest I am severely diametrically opposed to them, really.

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

Why not take a page from the U.S. Army and examine what it means to be a patriot of that country and fight for the rights that one holds dear?

Again....an assumption that people are interested in stories, lore, and roleplaying.  And you'd THINK that would be TRUE, being they're playing an mmo R P G but I'm not seeing a lot of people that appear interested in "reasons" when I read what PvPers post.  This is why I don't understand why they don't all go play an FPS together.  O.o

Perhaps factions that operate more like countries instead of the the hollow, looming presence they pose in current games would be a starting point. Say for example, if a faction is conquered, the losing players will find themselves under a new flag with penalties incurred upon what they had taken for granted.

So the purpose for fighting other players and factions is not about being better than everyone else, but instead about preserving what you have and perhaps, if imperialism kicks in, desiring more.

 

GREAT comments.  I just don't think that the vast majority of today's gaming market, is ready for anything that requires much thinking or effort.  They seem to pretty much WANT the rush of the quick kills in 15 minute scenarios and battlegrounds, etc.  If they can't have what they want....and RIGHT THE FECK NOW....they get whiney and cranky and file petitions about things taking too long, and (a good example....) the zombie invasion getting in the way of their power-leveling to 70, etc., etc.

It's almost as if trying to put any RPG elements into an MMORPG...has become TABOO.  /sigh

I'm not so sure it has more to do with the mentality of the players than with the design of the game. Personally, I think it's reversed.

When you show a player a new game, you teach them how to play it and what to look for in just the first few minutes (perhaps through tutorials). They will apply previous knowledge from other games they've played, of course, but precautions should be taken to shake them of those preconcieved notions in the new game itself. This step is usually done through immersion (Oblivion is an example), and MMORPGs are terrible for this, because they only focus on the core mechanics in the tutorials (ie: "here's your inventory, here's the quest log, that over there is an NPC, click on it for a quest, click this button to skip the quest text").

As of now, the design of MMORPGs almost enforces the solo gaming mentality through stressing only the immediate core mechanics (not the social aspects). It's like it doesn't matter that you're part of a faction or group, you're only out for yourself: to get the shiny ph4t l3wtz and grind to the level cap. The game is teaching you to think like that, not vice versa.

Anyways, I pointed out the army as a reference, not for role-playing purposes on a superficial level, but to highlight the very real possibilities and consequences of all-out war.

If you actually design the game mechanics around a bigger picture that players are forced to see, you change how the game is played. So if a player starts in a faction (unwittingly, or even unwillingly), and he and all members of the faction decide to be soloists, the organization will likely fail and could be easily conquered and destroyed by another faction that has it's act together.

The whole point of protecting your faction is to protect your in-game "rights". Losing your nation likely means that ridiculous taxes will be imposed and a lot of streamlining features (such as fast-travel or even being able to own a mount) become impossible because of the new imperial laws. Or perhaps your nation is very large, but you're losing ground... losing resources in the process, so it becomes more difficult to acquire certain important items.

So with such penalties in mind, would you not consider helping out your fellow countryman? Wouldn't you think that grouping with them, regardless of their 'guild' affiliation, would still benefit you even after they leave the group?

Focus goals with penalties and rewards. If you want people to put forth more collective effort, make it very inefficient or unwise to do the opposite.

As for what you're saying... I'm pretty sure that role-playing as you know it will not likely be represented properly in a digital medium. Ever (or until we reach the singularity, if it ever happens). I'll say for now that pen-and-paper games are the epitome of the role-playing experience and use it as an example.

When there are no rewards or penalties for role-playing (a mechanic which is nearly impossible to monitor in an MMOG), then there's no point in doing it. In a pen-and-paper medium, role-playing is the game, and if you don't do it, the experience will be very bland.

Video games demonstrate mechanics as inflexible laws, while pen-n-paper DMs use the mechanics as simple guidelines (role-playing often trumps the dice roll or prepared content). Until game engines can recognize and react to situations as efficiently as a dungeon master, RP and RP events will have no place in MMORPG game play... that is unless you have some friends who enjoy it, but then it's just isolated and becomes annoying when the immersion is constantly broken by others.

My comment is in regard to The mention of "focus". Should a MMO be "more focused" on pvp/pve?

A sandbox persistant world YOU focus on what YOU choose.

My message to Devs, Stop treating us like cattle. Give us a next gen sandbox and you'll have a winning title. A world you can be heroic, or a average shop worker. Let people have freedom to enjoy a virtual online world the way THEY choose.

If I want to be told what to do I will call my Mother.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by girlgeek

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

 GREAT comments.  I just don't think that the vast majority of today's gaming market, is ready for anything that requires much thinking or effort.  They seem to pretty much WANT the rush of the quick kills in 15 minute scenarios and battlegrounds, etc.  If they can't have what they want....and RIGHT THE FECK NOW....they get whiney and cranky and file petitions about things taking too long, and (a good example....) the zombie invasion getting in the way of their power-leveling to 70, etc., etc.

It's almost as if trying to put any RPG elements into an MMORPG...has become TABOO.  /sigh

 

I'm telling ya, you're not wasting your time by reading Plasuma's comments.  But so as not to make his head too big, I think I'll reply to yours.  You may be right when you say that today's gamers are not ready for more involved, thought provoking MMOs, but if that is so, I think it's due mainly because the devs have made it that way.  Therefore, it is also their job to make gamers willing to be more patient when it comes to playing them.

Let's go back to EQ.  I almost always go back to that game because I think it is the father of the vast majority of MMOs we see on the market today.  It really redefined the gaming world.  Before EQ, there were certainly video games that were addictive, but I doubt it was anything like what we saw in EQ.  It wasn't called Evercrack for nothing.  Speaking from my own experience, I know I had been semi-addicted to other games myself, but again, nothing like what I experienced in EQ.  There were games where I would stay up playing late into the evening, but eventually I would get tired and go to sleep.  In EQ, I would actually sacrifice sleep (and work and nourishment) so I could keep on playing.

So starting from there, I think the devs of future games looked at EQ, saw its enormous popularity, but also saw the enormous time sink required to play it.  And they must have thought, "How can we remove the time sink, but keep the fun."  And that's why today we see limited or no death penalties, superficial dungeons and kill "X" number of mobs for instant rewards.

But here's the problem.  For most of us (at least for me) who broke our teeth on EQ, removing those challenges in order to save time also removed the fun.  Take away the challenge, you take away the incentive to play.  And that's why most older gamers get bored with today's MMOs very quickly.

After playing EQ and realizing the enormous time commitment required to play it, I have always believed that if you don't have enough time to play an MMO that challenges you, you probably should stay away from it altogether.  I'm a fan of going in the opposite direction that companies are taking today's games.  More challenge, deeper dungeons, long thought provoking quests, etc.  And if I don't have the time to play,that's my problem.  But don't look for it to happen any time soon.  We live in a very fast-paced society and today's MMOs reflect that.  I'm not looking for a game anytime soon that caters to my desires.

People actually read my posts? I thought it was mutually agreed that I was a troll.

"They see me trollin'. They hatin'. Reportin', they tryin' catch me writin' dirty."

Chorus: "tryin' catch me writin' dirty."

You are right, though. In an attempt to remove the grind and time-sinks from the Everquest design, we've practically removed the only parts of the game that made it challenging. However, I think there's more to it than that.

Among many other things, I think a lot of the richness of the design that made it interesting to a mature mind was stripped away. Harsh penalties and the like weren't there to just waste time, they were designed to give the world a certain feel. Less like an amusement park ride and more like an adventure with real consequences.

Eventually the 'adventure' was replaced with a 'vacation tour' and that eventually morphed into the 'theme park' design (introduced by WoW) which is used today. Personally, I'd hate to see where it goes next following this trend. Don't get me wrong, all of the above could be very fun, but a difference I see is longevity: an adventure could last years, a vacation or tour might last a month, and you only go to a theme park for a day or two. Each with fewer negative aspects than the last, but since pros and cons often work in parallels, just as many positives are lost as well.

I suppose a similar trend in reality could include capitalism transforming into a socialism. More freedoms are removed to make life 'better and more streamlined for everyone', while the richness of life will slowly be drained away.

So as time goes on, we may yet see more theme parks that will transform into... well, whatever is more condensed than a theme park. This is the gamer generation of instant gratification, where zen is unheard of all goals must be reachable within the first few minutes of play.

I hope you understand that the features itself is not at fault here, any of these system can be good if properly used in conjunction, and each feature need to be much more complex than the MMO today offers.

Well, maybe except permadeath.  That one I just can't seem to make it work, too many issues.  Plus a MMORPG cannot get people to play just because they have "OMG PERMADEATH"

 I just have to say, to the OP and other posters in this thread, that it is probably the most intelligent thread I have read on MMORPG.com in a very long time.

It's just good to know that there are still some THINKING gamers out there.  Plas...you are so bright, and I LOVE reading your posts, so contrary to what you may have been told...we don't ALL think you're a "troll."  LOL Besides, most people on this forum site have completely lost touch with what a forum "troll" actually was in it's original old-timer forumite meaning. :)

Originally posted by girlgeek

 I just have to say, to the OP and other posters in this thread, that it is probably the most intelligent thread I have read on MMORPG.com in a very long time.

It's just good to know that there are still some THINKING gamers out there.  Plas...you are so bright, and I LOVE reading your posts, so contrary to what you may have been told...we don't ALL think you're a "troll."  LOL Besides, most people on this forum site have completely lost touch with what a forum "troll" actually was in it's original old-timer forumite meaning. :)

My guess is that Plasuma was joking about being accused of being (can you say "being" twice in the same sentence?) a troll.  He's kind of a prankster.  I could be wrong though.  Nothing that happens on these forums surprises me anymore.

And if you think this is an intelligent thread, check out the one I posted a couple years ago.  This one may have mine beat on intelligence, but I think mine tops pencilrick's in wisdom by at least 10 points.  Even the great Plasuma acknowledges the sagacity of my aged post :).

Originally posted by Shohadaku

My comment is in regard to The mention of "focus". Should a MMO be "more focused" on pvp/pve?

A sandbox persistant world YOU focus on what YOU choose.

Either that or what the random ganker chooses for you.

The only recipe of failure in an MMO is designing a game that doesn't make money. A good example would be Auto Assault. That is a recipe of failure.

A recipe of success would be an MMORPG that makes money. The obvious example is WoW.

WoW is an easy game. Simple as that. Having come from Everquest to playing WoW I could not beleive how fast it was to level. Not having to group to level either fun. Instead of sitting in PoK spamming LFM I could go grind out a level while waiting for an instance group.

The pvp side of WoW is to play whatever class they love that patch cycle. The pvp scenarios are pathetic and frankly make you want to stab yourself in the eye because after working hard to win a battle the guy next to you brags about afk'ing for 2 days and now has all of his gladiator set.

Originally posted by pencilrick

The Recipe of Failure:

1.  Heavy PVP focus.  The message boards clamor for it, players gripe about there not being enough PVP, but when they get what they ask for....  Empty servers are the result.  Strong PVP focus fritters away community and group cooperation, and players leave in droves after the short-lived thrill of PVP wears off and the annoyance of being ganked sets in.

2.  Linear-style gameplay.  This is like watching a movie... over and over and over and over again.  Worse, it restricts the feeling of player freedom and makes the gaming experience feel contrived.

3.  In-game tutorial newbie zones.   Limits the feeling of player freedom and is a hit upon immersion; just doesn't feel real, even in a fantasy environment.

4.  Complex interface.  The only challenge players should face should be related to strategy, never to how to interact with the game mechancis.  Like checkers and chess, games should be simple, but strategies should be deep.

5.  Heavily instanced.  Too much instancing separates the players from their in-game community, and community is really half the fun in playing an MMO.  Instancing should be looked upon as a necessary evil and never a "feature" in MMO design.

6.  Overpowered graphics.  If an average computer cannot run a game on near-full graphics, players will be miffed.  Much better is to update graphics over the years to fit the computers that are out, rather than to create memory-intensive graphics that players may never see.

7.  Slow combat, clunky movement.  Animations must be fast and smooth in order to give the player a feeling of control, at least over his or her own character.  Clunky movement or uber-slow combat display a lack of refinement in the game's execution and raise questions about other aspects of the game.

8.  Painless failure.  Lack of a death penalty, while taking away the sting of death the 1% of the time a player dies, always waters down the thrill of victory the other 99% of the time.  Levels and items become bland, even a given.  Dungeons are not feared and the overall game world is not respected.  There must be some degree of "sting" to dying, perhaps not overcapicitating, but enough to cause a player to curse or slap his or her keyboard.  The ire and angst of dying will soon subside after a few moments when the player returns to the exicting gameplay for the rush one gets with taking risks.

Think about it; playing an MMO without a death penalty that stings is like riding a bicycle with training wheels on it.  You might never fall down, but you'll never know the feeling of riding upright on your own.

9.  Perma-death.  A rare mechanic in an MMO, but why have it? Why?  Why?

10.  Themepark world.  Designing world around players instead of NPC's.  In order to feel real and immersive, the game world must make sense, and in order to makes sense it must be desigend around NPC (Non-player character) civilizations or communities.  The Barbarians are still Barbarians because they live in forsaken wastes or frozen lands.  The Human port city thrives because it has a deep sea harbor and sits next to a river that is a major thoroughfare for trade.  The Elves are whispered as legends because they live far off in a remote woodland that adventurers hardly dare enter.  Stuff like that.

Give players a world and they will want to escape into it, explore it, become part of it.  EVERY TIME players log into an MMO, they should feel like they are escaping into a beloved world such as Middle Earth (or similar) and not logging into an arena or theme park.

11.  No bastions of safety.  Players should view the game world as perilous and challenging, and should breath a sigh of relief when arriving at a remote village or a city.  Bastions of safety are places to train, sell, group up, log into or out of.  The countryside should be too dangerous to do those things and therefore respected by the players. 

This will give more meaning to places as islands of civilization in a vast wild and cruel land.

I could list other stuff, but this is enough, and this comprises my checklist to identify things to avoid before buying another MMO.

 

 

 

Hey awesome stuff man. Hmm all is well in this god like post that the dev god's must look upon and god damn fix there stuff. But I have some opinions on some points. 7.  WoW has extremley non linear combat in my opinion dude. Its very smooth and fast. 3. Yeah thats true, sooner or later somone will have to implement a better way of teaching the player how to play the game without making it feel less real. This has already happened in console game's today and you dont have to read a manual. For example when you start a game the opening scenario implements basic combat and movment and such while reaching the destenation of the next bit of the game.

Originally posted by Biohazard931

Hey awesome stuff man. Hmm all is well in this god like post that the dev god's must look upon and god damn fix there stuff. But I have some opinions on some points. 7.  WoW has extremley non linear combat in my opinion dude. Its very smooth and fast. 3. Yeah thats true, sooner or later somone will have to implement a better way of teaching the player how to play the game without making it feel less real. This has already happened in console game's today and you dont have to read a manual. For example when you start a game the opening scenario implements basic combat and movment and such while reaching the destenation of the next bit of the game.

Wow, like what guild Wars has been doing since Factions?