It took a couple weeks, but Dana finally finished the thought that was born in his Make The Journey Fun column. This week, Massey explores his MMO Litmus Test and finally, in his opinion, pins down the core flaw that undermines a lot of the MMORPG genre.

This week, I open with a simple test. I want you to honestly ask yourself or a gamer friend the following two questions:

Where are you in [insert any single player RPG here]?

And where are you in [insert any MMO name here]?

Read his full article here.

So whatever happened to "Wish"? 

 Enjoyed your article. I like the idea of unlockable content myself. The funny thing is I have seen unlockable content so to speak in an old game called Everquest before. You had to get keyed for certain raids and you have to also do raids in sequence to get the necessary gear for the next. I loved this design myself. I think you are right on though on though. 

I would like to see a game with no levels and progression was just unlocking content all the way through. You do this to unlock this, so on and so on. This can be accomplished with gear as well as in my example. WoW had "keyed" content as well at first. Thanks for the article.

It's about measurables.  In single person RPGs, you've got a static story line to follow - even if there are different paths through it.  The measurable is the point in that storyline.  In MMOs, you have a wide variety of choices and the measurable is your level and class.

For example:  In RPGs, arriving at a certain city measures how far you've gotten in a game.  In MMOs, you have several dozen cities to visit and that feat does not measure your advancement.

Nice article, Dana.

Certainly, it would be interesting to see a game really take the idea to implementation. I think that DAOC offers other wisdom. IMHO part of the death of that game was the shift from massive warfare to "Group vs. Group". People found out that they could get the most realm points (the method of advancement) by forming well oiled groups that avoided objectives but instead mowed through other players as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

So, again, the "grind" came in to the "end game" through Realm Point acquisition.
WoW has it's end game "grind" through item acquisition (raiding) or PvP (arena or battlegrounds - arena point or honor point grind).

If I understand you correctly, what you're driving toward is advancement through the game where you don't have a number to represent what you're doing, but simply the indication of your success or failure and the needs driven by that. For example, if you get to the next zone and fail at overcoming the creatures there, then you didn't obtain sufficient advancement in gear or skills from the previous zone. I guess that's still a grind, but it blurs it by not having a level meter tied to it. 

Originally posted by Sylvene

It's about measurables.  In single person RPGs, you've got a static story line to follow - even if there are different paths through it.  The measurable is the point in that storyline.  In MMOs, you have a wide variety of choices and the measurable is your level and class.

For example:  In RPGs, arriving at a certain city measures how far you've gotten in a game.  In MMOs, you have several dozen cities to visit and that feat does not measure your advancement.

Yeah, but couldn't a MMORPG be built that had the same advancement feel as that single player RPG?  If you get to that city, you've made it to a certain level.  Like, without ports, someone who gets to Shatterath has to be at least 58, to make a WoW analogy?

Originally posted by Sylvene

It's about measurables.  In single person RPGs, you've got a static story line to follow - even if there are different paths through it.  The measurable is the point in that storyline.  In MMOs, you have a wide variety of choices and the measurable is your level and class.

For example:  In RPGs, arriving at a certain city measures how far you've gotten in a game.  In MMOs, you have several dozen cities to visit and that feat does not measure your advancement.

I have to agree with this reply. I think it's spot on.

What I'm now curious about is if you ask LOTRO players "What book are you up to?" if they'll reply with the numbers of the book and chapter or if they will describe the book and chapter,

It can. Guild Wars actually does its PvE Progression primarily through storyline in the Expansions Factions and Nightfall. Especially in Nightfall, the level is really just a sidenote.

However, the problem is not whether you can build such a thing, the problem is whether or not players at large accept it. First of all, your game would have to be much smaller than other MMORPGs unless you get a monstrous budget, because you ll have to fill the game with real, interesting, unique content most of the time. The level/points/rating/skill advancement schemes have huge advantages in terms of what you can get away with. Imagine an average zone in WoW, say, Hellfire Peninsula in the Outlands. If there werent points or levels to gain, how many of the quests there would be accepted as decent content? Less than 20% probably.

Or even worse, Lord of the Rings Online, which is right now probably the worst offender in terms of utterly formulaic quests. As soon as points on a progression bar are gone, players will not put up with even remotely as much content extensions, grinds, cookie-cutter crapquests and idiotic, nonsensical random quests and activities.

So , the game would be shorter.

Then there is another level to it, which is the competition. Even the most paced and happy players, at times, feel like they have to keep up somehow. Sometimes, people actually do have to keep up in order to group up. Unless you make your game mostly singleplayer or find a way to create good, enticing group content outside the main storyline/progression path, you splinter the playerbase even more.

Also, I am not sure people will like this new way of playing. I mean, seriously, racking up progression points of various sorts is obviously VERY attractive to many people. Its also very easy to understand, straightforward, and a clear measurement when comparing with anyone else. It works. Its limited, boring maybe, one-dimensional, but to the mass audience, I dont think these are drawbacks.

Maybe ToR surprises us all and becomes truly a new model of MMORPG, but even then it is not easy to copy... WoW already raised the bar, or rather, the pricetag on modern MMOs insanely. Its safe to say the budget of ToR will be in the triple-digit millions of dollars easily. That kind of money allows a lot of content indeed, but that kind of money is also utterly exclusive to such huge projects.

Look how smaller companies like Turbine already struggle with their content delivery in the shadow of WoW and its huge budget. I dont see a content-driven progressional path possible to finance for anyone outside the biggest 2 or 3 studios and publishers any time soon.

Originally posted by Sylvene

It's about measurables.  In single person RPGs, you've got a static story line to follow - even if there are different paths through it.  The measurable is the point in that storyline.  In MMOs, you have a wide variety of choices and the measurable is your level and class.

For example:  In RPGs, arriving at a certain city measures how far you've gotten in a game.  In MMOs, you have several dozen cities to visit and that feat does not measure your advancement.

 

I must agree with this comment too. Obviously, it is a closed verses open environment too, as well as story. In the single person RPG you can actually feel being the focus of the story. In an MMO you are competing with others for the story, leading to camping and kill stealing.

While the questins posed are an interesting litmus test, how would the answer be if a player has reached the end game of an MMO, where you have reached the limit of your level?

Beautiful. Just...beautiful.

And that's something that Turbine got right in Asheron's Call 1. Sure, it had levels, but that wasn't the focus. I can't EVER remember worrying about levels while playing AC other than as a "litmus" for whether I should attack a creature or not. "leveling up" wasn't the point in AC. Going out and exploring, finding new places that were added in the monthly updates, the truly randomness of their loot drop system...those are the things that grabbed me, hooked me. There was no "endgame". There was just the never old satisfaction "boldly going where you hadn't before".

You know, adventuring. I think that's where alot of companies have lost their way, too. They shifted focus from "adventurer" and locked focus on "hero".

The level based system is the Staples "easy button" for developers who want Have CEOs and shareholders whinings sitting on top of their monitors day in and out. "Get it done as soon as possible" is practically pumped through the speakers like the Indianapolis Colts pumping crowd noise through their stadium speakers.

I honestly,very truly hope that you take your "access" to this industry to heart and try to convey this message when you have the opportunity to these companies. I really don't believe they (management) visit websites such as this (too worried about making tee times) and someone needs to convey as much as possible at these E3's and GDCs that the natives are restless. The vocal ones are here, sure, but just because the greater majority aren't on forums like theses doesn't mean they don't feel the same way. I'm of the opinion the Bystander Effect is in full effect here. People just figure they aren't the only one that feels that way so someone in the customer base must be conveying the same sentiment to the industry.

Dana, you are missing one very important difference between DAoC and WAR.

The 3rd realm.

If DAoC only had 2 realms fighting for those keeps we would have seen exactly the same thing WAR has been dealing with since release.

That 3rd realm really adds all the difference.  Just think about it for a second.  If there was a 3rd realm in WAR we wouldn't just have people swapping keeps, we would have real fights, especially if 1 realm manged to take all but 1 keep, the battle would be epic for that last keep.

In my opinion this is the main reason WAR's RvR is lacking.

" I tried this quiz at E3 and not a single person answered any differently."

Your informal survey was flawed. Do you think the average MMO gamer goes to E3?  Heck, I'd bet that only the most hardcore of the hardcore can get in (sure, with exceptions).  However, your article is very good overall and I enjoyed it.  I was in WAR when those changes were made and observed that. My guild was all about maxxing so it wasn't really a surprise. I think that's just general human nature when you're in a pvp-oriented game.  My wife and I were just playing for enjoyment and to see new things so pvp wasn't our focus... yes, that means we didn't really fit in with the WAR-mindset.  However, the real thing that drove us away wasn't that as much as the over-abundance of crowd control.  :)

I have lost a ton of interest in MMOs. WAR was something I was waiting on (because of DAoC) but found out quickly that I did not like just 2 realms. I enjoyed RvRvR so much but RvR lost something for me. I keep trying games but haven't found anything that catches my attention like EQ did when it came out.

I haven't given up but I seem to be playing almost everything but MMOs these days. I keep trying but too often there is nothing that holds my attention. Now I seem to be waiting for games like Global Agenda, FFXIV, the Old Republic, DC Universe, and The Agency. I am hoping there will be new and interesting ways to play through such games.

I loved EQ and DAoC. I had tons of fun with those and I think the difficulty was part of it. I play for a bit and don't really feel any challenges. The problems stated by the article are fair but they miss problems that some others have with MMOs now.

IMO

It was obvious during the design and beta stages of war when they anounced (and fans cheered) that there would be seperate levels for pvp and pve and individual ways to to level them that this was always going to be the outcome.

I don't think the litmus test in itself is actually relevent and all that really happened was the author seemed to have a eurica moment when he suddenly realised that with levels in a game, a massive portion of the playerbase will always take the course of least resistance. Now this is not meant as an insult but that really is no revelation.

How people describe their current position in a game may be an indication on how people view their progress and maybe even a slight indication as to how they play their game but it most certainly doesn't indicate whether the game is good or people enjoy it or if the journey to end game (and the end game itself) is worth it. MMO's have (or should have, which is why its quite interesting someone bought up LotRO) multiple options when progressing their chars through an MMO this is much more likely to be why they use level as indication as telling someone about the quest they are on or part of the game doesn't tell anything as the other person may never have even been there or experienced it.

I am not deliberately trying to pick holes in the atricle but the conclusion to me also doesn't hold true either in practice nor logic. The games that are used to pad the argument, such as TOR, which are touted as being primarily story focused and driven is only subject to each gamers preferences and opinions on games. Is it a good approach to a game? O/c it is people like a good story and canon but it is not going to save the game if the mechanics and end game are not also to the gamers preference.

I don't believe it is about taking a single player game and basically making it function as an MMO, an MMO is a completely different animal and people playing them have entirely different expectations. Few people hate levels more than me but that for me is more due to the fake functionality they bring to a game. But it doesn't change players methods of progression in general, they will still use web sites to skim through content and they will always take the easiest route all the time there is some form of competition to end game.

 Dana is insightful as usual.

Until we move away from a model which provides goals like gear and levels, we will be stuck. Levels are easy compartments which aid development of games. We can lump gear, quests, skills and content in these compartments. To create a game which ignores this is going in undiscovered country. Sure you can emulate RPGs (and, like all of you, my last hope is Bioware), but you get hammered by MMO veterans as the game not being a real MMO.

There has to be a way or method to personalize a MMO environment (or at least give the impression that you are playing a RPG), but still give keep the massive in massive multiplayer.

Very good points. Its too bad WoW is so successful. B/c of it, it will be hard to make games where 'levels' are not the focus.

I like your idea, and I think you're right on.

Thanks to the Motion controllers and the natal, debuted at E3, I think you'll see in some near future the inclusion of these devices in a MMO setting. Your character could tie movements, individualized to specific spells and combat manuvers, where where you HIT makes the difference. YOu could have specific gesutres that have to be learned and mastered in the correct fashion to produce spells. The limits are endless.

tw!

Originally posted by TheHavok

So whatever happened to "Wish"? 

 

Yes, please write an article about why Wish failed.

That would be more interesting than all the drek I've read from you so far.

Tomb of Wraithwall -> FF XII

Scars Cave -> Aion

Also:  Gamers play games.  People without real jobs go to gaming conventions and TALK about gaming. :)

Originally posted by Sylvene

It's about measurables.  In single person RPGs, you've got a static story line to follow - even if there are different paths through it.  The measurable is the point in that storyline.  In MMOs, you have a wide variety of choices and the measurable is your level and class.

For example:  In RPGs, arriving at a certain city measures how far you've gotten in a game.  In MMOs, you have several dozen cities to visit and that feat does not measure your advancement.

 

Well....I disagree with this statement.  In Oblivion, Morrowind, Fallout 3 (all Bethesda games, I know) I can be in any city whenever I want.  Where I am on the map isn't an accomplishment at all.  What I've done on the way.....that's the accomplishment.

Call me silly, but I play all MMORPG just like I play single RPGs.  I've played too many to count, starting with EQ and AC....and I have never....never.....gotten a character to max level.  For me, it's about the story.  And to understand all the stories, both little and large, main and minor, one needs to quest.  So....I quest and explore....and level very very slowly....then I move on to the next game....over and over again.

For me....it's not about "getting there"....wherever that might be.  It's about "what I'm doing on the way."

I wish games would just dump the character levels and instead of level bars, have skill bars, where the more I used my dagger, the more that skill improved, allowing me to add points to attributes that are used in the dagger skill....such as dagger, speed, agility...etc.  Many games do this, but they also use the "character level" stat along side of it.  I just don't get the purpose of character level. 

End game?  Never needed one cuz I've never been there.