Guilds and Game Content
MMORPG.com's Community Manager, Laura Genender, writes this editorial exploring the world of guilds and game content in MMORPGs.
Editorial By Laura Genender on April 27, 2007
The massively multiplayer online world is not geared toward the solo player. To a certain extent, it's logical: time is progress and multiple players can contribute more time; the tougher encounters have greater rewards, but take more power to conquer. And why have thousands of players congregated in a world if they aren't going to spend time together?
Thus, the creation of guilds, clans, corporations; the name does not matter as much as the concept. Players with similar goals, gameplay styles, and personalities band together to conquer content and explore virtual worlds. The general concept of "guilds" has become almost mundane in our community - they are must-haves in games, and naturally fall into various roles within a community. In my opinion, though, beneath the surface of guild creation and success is a complex structure based both on available gameplay and server population.
Guild composition and policy becomes increasing complex as you scale from casual family-style guilds to hardcore mandatory raid guilds. In general, all guilds must be large enough that members do not feel like they belong to an empty or undesirable group. Classes, or at least archetypes (tanks, healers, DPS, etc) must be balanced so that members can form groups for leveling - and for raids, classes must be fine-tuned to accomplish more difficult goals that require different strategies.
Guilds fill different niches. For a guild to be successful, its target audience - casual players, hardcore raiders, etc - must be large enough to furnish the guild. Numerous small family guilds can exist on the same server shard, though most often there are fewer high-end raid or PvP guilds. Raid guilds tend to fan out along the content line, and thus more raid content in a game means more room for raid guilds.
In my experience, there are often two guilds at the top of the mountain, one slightly ahead of the other: one is the number one Uber Guild, and the other is made of hardcore players who hate (or were rejected by) the number one Uber Guild. From there, guilds scale downward through content until they run out of elbow room - while a little competition is healthy, lack of targets will choke a guild into nonexistence. Here also is the virtue of instancing - if multiple guilds can progress through the same content at the same time, they can, for the most part, coexist. There is still competition for membership, but there is no risk of target choke.
As much as guilds are about competition, they are also about internal cooperation. Players work together toward a similar goal. As each player gains strength it increases the strength of the guild overall, however each player also counts on the guild for their own advances. One example of this in practice is the popular loot system, DKP (Dragon Kill Points) in which players are rewarding with 'points' for participating in raids. These points act as a currency and can be spent to buy items that drop off of raid targets; in effect, raiders take turns receiving gear and helping each other obtain gear that none of them could obtain on their own.
While guilds are fairly stable entities at the best of times, any game and server will have a certain amount of guild churn, where new guilds rise and giants fall. This too can be linked to game content: as new expansions are released, servers see an influx of population seeking new opportunities, and as time wears a game down, the population will slowly dwindle.
As said earlier, content choke is one cause of the death of guilds. Players often progress through content more quickly than developers produce it, and the natural fan of guild positioning will start to close with time. More casual raid guilds and those previously farther down the "ladder" will start to catch up with the most current high end content, and competition (assuming no instancing) will create a virtual sort of natural selection. The guilds that are able to move quickly on targets, and predict when they will be available, are the guilds that will survive.
Guilds also meet their end based on personality conflicts - also known as Drama. There is no way to please everyone, and eventually members will become disgruntled with loot methods, progression direction, other members, etc. This often leads to the rise of new guilds: disgruntled players will take their friends and leave an established guild to found one more in line with their ideals.
More casual guilds are in some ways more simple - there is no worry of target competition, for example - but these guilds deal with constant churn, as members decide to move into raid content. Casual guilds are often referred to as "grow-up guilds", where players will level - or grow - up in the guild, then move to a raid guild once they hit max level. Players seek companionship and company as they level, as well as friends around their level to group with in more difficult areas.
Our MMO lives are spent in daily monotony: we spend hours killing the same monsters in the same dungeons, weeks of adventuring profits are saved for a coveted new sword or breastplate. Guilds allow us companionship, teamwork, and a human element of excitement that would otherwise be missing in our games.
Interesting read although I disagree on a few points.
Guilds do not need to be large to be a "good" guild. There are many guilds that have only a dozen or so members but have been around for quite some time. This small, close-knit guild may not be able to take down Uber_Boss_001, but they are helpful to each other and foster a fun playing environment. On the other hand, I've been part of a guild that was so big it eventually broke up into a few smaller guilds with each "new" version of the guild wanting me to join them.
I also do not think that guilds are broken up into the Uber Guild and All Others. As I said above, there are small casual friendly guilds. There are also guilds that are centered towards pvp (if that game has it), raiding and I was even in a guild of crafters once in EQ2. To assume if you are not in an Uber Guild you must have been "rejected" by one isn't very realistic.
Great write up of Guilds in general. I recently helped with a Podcast on the same subject, I have been running many tests on guild creation lately, trying to find out how certain types of guilds form and why. If interested it is our PodCast 11 show at www.wife-aggro.com.
I have been in every type of Community out there, guilds, tribes, corporations, kinships, supergroups, companies and so on, and each genre brings it's own flavor to the mechanism. Something I didn’t see in your article were groups formed around role play or themes, which fall outside of groups of friends/family and raiding/competitive groups and size is a by product not a given for a type.
I do agree with the rise and fall mechanisms, and I would add that most guild changes/schisms happen if the Leader is less active. This from my experience has been the trigger the majority of the time, so it puts a lot of pressure on the creator/leader to keep the group together. I also find it interesting that you rarely have a "rule by committee" form of leadership, with all the forms of government in the world, it seems most of us are willing to play under benign dictatorship.
How do you feel about the tools provided by the game developers thus far? I find for a game based on bringing thousands of players together, they do not spend enough time on giving us better tools and features to create the communities of players. A simple chat channel and tabard is just not enough. Let me know what you think about where Dev’s could improve this part of their games.
Interesting editorial though I find the ending too dramatic, really. For example, I enjoyed couple of MMOGs out there while not participating in any sort of stable community. I admit that being in a guild or any other co-op group is considerably more fun, but it is not like you can't get anything out of the game but boredom just because you ain't participating.
Hmm, so the only guilds are raid guilds in MMO's.
Uh, how about PVP games like SB or AC or EVE etc.
There is plenty of different things, tight knit groups of great players, tight knit groups of friends, large zergs.
WOW is not the be all and end all of guilds. If anything its very limiting, pshhh, raiding PVE. You cant really be "leet" or "uber" doing that.
I do agree that guilds are currently a ubiquitous part of the MMOG experience, and that most present day MMOGs require them for player advancement. However, from a design perspective, I do not agree with the sweeping generalization that guilds are a "must-have" component in MMOGs for player advancement.
Here's why:
The preconception by players that an MMOG must have end-game content that is consumable only through aggregate cooperation of more than a handful of players (ie. guilds taking on "raid" content) in order to be good or survivable is antiquated and unimaginative. Developing raid content as "end-game" content is a choice made by game designers. It is not the only option available when creating a MMOG world. There are as many ways to develop end-game content out there as their are separate imaginations to dream them up.
For whatever reason, raid content as end-game content is the status quo for current MMOGs. While I can not say why this design choice is often made (it may be part economic, part user demand, and part fear of user reaction when breaking from the norm), it is THE choice game design companies have been making. It is because of this particular design choice that guilds have become necessary in MMOGs. The creation of guilds as a component of MMOGs is first and foremost the result of game design, and not a person's choice or desire to form or become part of a large group of people.
From a design perspective, it is very difficult to create content that satisfies all types of players. Normally classified as either "casual", "soft-core" or "hard-core", different types of players enjoy different types of content. A truly exceptional game offers each type of player multiple ways -- with each tailored to their time availability and level of "gaming committment" -- to achieve the same end result. Average or below average games force players down a singular path to achieve a certain result: for example, forcing people to join a guild to experience any end-game content instead of offering them group or solo content to accomplish the same.
Game designers are starting to understand this. While raid-only end game content is one way to offer players a progression path, design companies are realizing there are many more. There are a few game design companies out there already that are refocusing their end-game content development efforts from just raid encounters to include smaller, intimate group encounters and solo content, most likely because they're learning that the majority of MMOG players prefer these types of encounters to waiting for 40-70 people to organizie in order to progress through 4-10 hour chunks of raid encounter content. As content becomes less raid focused, guilds will become less important as a tool for progression, and less a "must-have" in an MMOG.
That is not to say guilds should NOT have a place in MMOGs, because they certainly should. MMOGs need structures that allow for organized, structured social interaction. To that end, guilds should exist in MMOGs in order to meet the basic human need for personal contact. Much like we have "circles" of friends in real life and places we usually frequent to get together (work, school, the local gym, hobby clubs, sports teams, etc.), so should guilds fill that role in virtual worlds.
Plainly speaking, guilds are the basis for community in the MMOG, not the basis for game progression or player advancement. Any game that requires an indivudual to join a guild to experience progression will not last long in competition with games that do not. While most games released at this time have not embraced this philosophy, there are those in development that have. These next generation games and the companies creating them will redefine the MMOG experience, including the relationship between character progression and guild function.
Its amazing how stuck in the same "old dinosaur" way of thinking about social interection in games the writer is.
The whole, clique thing, where people in whats supposed to be a SOCIETY seperate into very small (when compared to the whole) little groups that for the far greater most part ,only serve themselves is just sad and old.
Just like raids.Just like the MMOs they keep repackaging and throwing at us over and over.
The whole current MMO design, and the thinking that creates and clings to it, needs to be thrown out.
Having been a member of many different types and sizes of guilds, I can say that the best part of being in a guild is the feeling that you're contributing to something larger than just your character. That being said, far too many MMOs have guilds as simply a collection of individuals without any penalty for leaving one guild for another. Maybe it's just personal experience, but the guilds I was a member of in EQ2 tended to last longer and in general be much more healthy than the guilds in WoW, and I think a large part of that had to do with the status system that EQ2 had. Active contribution from most members was the only way to advance a guild level in EQ2, and advancing your guild brought tangible benefits to all members.
Compare that to WoW where you 1) look at the guild raid progression thread on the server forums. 2) join one of the guilds near the bottom. 3) raid for a few weeks, and then gquit and apply for another guild that's got higher progression. Repeat til you hit the top.
While not all players in WoW do that, and not all EQ2 guilds are fantastic and lasting, the general trend to me seems to be, if you have to put something into a guild other than just clicking an accept button, you're more likely to stick around even if it's not directly benefiting you, thus making a healthier guild.
Maybe the writer plays VG? I agree with you.
Author Fails Great MMORPG Community
Author Appeals to Logic But is Illogical
I strongly disagree with this author. I have in excess of 8 years of MMORPG experience, and there are numerous errors in both logic as well as reason. Ironically, the author refers to logic by stating, "it's logical" that current MMORPGs are "not geared toward the solo player." It is not true. I think that was, as this author said, "logical" maybe five years ago. Maybe.
Must-Haves in the Past
"The general concept of "guilds" has become almost mundane in our community - they are must-haves in games, and naturally fall into various roles within a community." - What is the experience of this author? In the rest of the article, the author limits the discussion of the "roles" of guilds to a single role (raiding).
Clarity?
"In my opinion, though, beneath the surface of guild creation and success is a complex structure based both on available gameplay and server population." - What?
People Want to Join Small to Mid-Sized Guilds! How Dare You Suggest Otherwise.
"All guilds must be large enough that members do not feel like they belong to an empty or undesirable group." - Untrue in its presumption as well as its entirety. The author is clearly biased or at least unable (lacks the capability or experience) to represent a small to mid-sized guilds' point-of-view. Small to mid-sized guilds are crucial and very appealing to many gamers. Respectfully, the idea that they are "undesierable" is absurd. The author continued on this presumption later in the article by stating, "For a guild to be successful, its target audience - casual players, hardcore raiders, etc - must be large enough to furnish the guild."
The Old Group Dynamic; Let's Talk about Guilds
"Classes, or at least archetypes (tanks, healers, DPS, etc) must be balanced so that members can form groups for leveling." - The trend has been this in the past, and luckily the industry is moving into a different direction; that is an outdated and obsolete dynamic. I believe this is filler and does not relate or connect well with guilds.
Author Contradicts Self
"Numerous small family guilds can exist on the same server shard, though most often there are fewer high-end raid or PvP guilds. Raid guilds tend to fan out along the content line, and thus more raid content in a game means more room for raid guilds." - What? Is this author speaking of the industry and guild and game content in general or limiting this very important topic to a single game, which would make the analysis much more narrow and specific? Suddenly, small guilds are viable although earlier the author stated, "all guilds must be large." I think the author is confused. So am I.
Author Actually States that "Hardcore Players"Not in #1 or #2 Guild Were Rejected By Them - (Very) Bad Assumption
"In my experience, there are often two guilds at the top of the mountain, one slightly ahead of the other: one is the number one Uber Guild, and the other is made of hardcore players who hate (or were rejected by) the number one Uber Guild." - Excuse me? I thought we were talking about guid and game content. I have the impression this author has a (very) narrow scope with limited experience. The author is making generalizations that are as far-reaching as could possibly be stretched. If I take the author's word that people not in the #1 "top of the mountain" guild were rejected it, the author leaves me no choice then but to presume the author's experience is extraordinarily limited. If that is the case, I question the author's capability to write a useful article.
We Know: More Filler from Author
"One example of this in practice is the popular loot system, DKP (Dragon Kill Points) in which players are rewarding with 'points' for participating in raids." - I state this with complete affection. Yes, we know. So what? "These points act as a currency... ." In reference to DKPoints ... We know.
Drama Neither Adequately Explored Nor Explained Well
"Drama. There is no way to please everyone, and eventually members will become disgruntled with loot methods, progression direction, other members, etc." - Yes. Drama exists in guilds because, as is very clear from the article, the author is refering to a forced-guilding (zerg-raiding) game. However, the author does the readers the greatest injustice by failing to explore the fact that drama is typically a system of forced-guilding. The author does not spend a single moment to explore the vibrancy of guilds if Members joined not out of necessity but because the guild was a community. The author is stuck on the forced-guild model, and I think that is an old feature and not representative of all current games. The direction is away from this dreadful trend. The author is apparently not exploring new, innovative trends.
Author Presumes Grinding is Necessary in All Games
"We spend hours killing the same monsters in the same dungeons" for an item. - I think this author needs to play a variety a games before speaking on guilds, their importance, why people join them, what advantages they confer before commenting on guilds in a very general sense. The "grind" in which we slay the "same monsters" ad infinitum in the "same dungeon," as the author described, was a feature before but luckily moving in a new direciton. Author does not explore new directions or possibly even new games.
My Conclusion
Guilds: PvP, Crafting, Community
The author completely failed to address PvP, crafting networks, and other features of gameplay and motivations for why gamers enjoy joining Guilds. The article is biased, incomplete, and frankly out-of-date. The author is referring to a very forced-guilding game I believe without any attention whatsoever to the changes ongoing in the industry, new directions, and how guilds will adapt to these changes. The author states nothing new, and I saw old problems and old assumptions concerning guilds explored.
Author Cheapens MMORPG
I have the greatest respect for MMORPG, its staff, and its community. However, this author has offered nothing new on a critically important topic and I believe cheapens this great MMORPG resource. If I seem a bit harsh or unfair, I strongly feel it is important to maintain the very high standards of MMORPG to keep it attractive for its vast community as an excellent and outstanding resource. I feel the author put very little effort into this article. We can do better - easily.
Absolutely. The old, massive guild model the author states is the "desired" one. However, the author really dramatically makes a awful assumption in that small to mid-sized guilds are neither successful nor desirable.
The author even stated that the reason why people are not in the "top of the mountain" guild is because the guild rejected them. The idea of that is absurd and laughable. LOL.
Thank God it is not just me. In 8 years of gaming, I never heard of a casual guild called "grow-up" guild.
The author completely ignored how zerg-guilds, with their vast size, undermine community rather than enhance it. I am shocked, because I cherish this MMORPG community. The author's entire article essentially focuses on "raid" guilds, but completely ignores this immense issue. I frankly do not consider it an oversight; it makes me, respectfully, call to question the author's competence and bias.
Exactly.
I am truly disappointed the author fails to address this. (1) As you said, "designers are starting to understand this" and "there are many more" reasons to form a guild. (2) I strongly agree, and contrary to what the author states (believes?), "guilds should exist in MMOGs in order to meet the basic human need for" community. The author seems to think that guilds should exist to raid. I feel the author did not research prior to writing this article, respectfully. Further, the author is living in 1999.
My honest impression is that the author conducted no research and essentially wrote an article with filler that was suitable for 2001 at best and earlier (if at all!) at worse.
I am not sure where this author plays, if the author plays any MMORPG at all. I would hope the author has at least experience in multiple games and multiple guilds. My honest impression is the author ... does not have very much experience at all. If the author does, it does not show to ME.
Since I can't get any of my RL buddies to play MMOGs I usually play solo...so if a MMOG doesn't have a strong solo game I don't play it.
That view of guilds is pretty much from a Wow perspective. I have seen many guilds self destruct in Wow, and I would have to say that more often than not it is drama more than anything that causes it.
I have been in many guilds in MMO's and the the view you assign them is really distorted by Wow. Not every MMO raids, in fact most don't.
A good guild can make or break a game. As long as you are having fun with your guild mates, the game will remain fun.
That being said there was a older article written regarding guilds a while back
A Guild Too Far - I share a similar reason for guilds. To find a pool of players to game with. I also shared bad experiences as well. Guilds that are WORK. Meetings, requirements that are outlandish, etc. Just something to be aware of. Guild play, IHO was agreat resourceful tool to get players together, form relationships and lasting bonds to play in the gaming world. Everquest and the giants of the time captured the essence of MMOs with this and as a result built the fanbase for a decade.
Can a player immersive himself in a virtual world with thousands of other players and enjoy himself? Of course. Nothing wrong with teaming up and overcoming obstacles and challanges the virutal world throws at you. Do you need a guild to do that ? No.
Guilds may be sweatshops for goldfarmers too. It aint all glamorous.
That being said, the experience is enhanced when you find yourself a group of virtual buddies and share experiences together consistently. A guild of fellowship is well worth a monthly subscription.
Yes, I agree.
Guilds as we know them in these games don't help to create community. All they do is fragment the community.
People would form social ties with a network of friends regardless of how a mmorpg was designed. But when you put them in a position where they essentially MUST join a formal organization then it is less like socializing with your friends and more like tolerating your co-workers.
And then if these forced organizations are in a competitive environment (and all mmorpgs are competitive in one way or another) then you get a strong mentality with the theme: --if you're not one of us I don't want to have anything to do with you--.
So now you've taken a massively multiplayer game and broken it up into reletively small cliques that interact with each other as little as possible.
If joining a guild gave no obvious benefits, if it truly was optional, then the dividing line between your circle of friends and the rest of the player base would be less clearly defined and much more fuzzy. If guilds were not formally supported by any game mechanics then the border between US and THEM would be even more fluid. Then you would have much wider reaching and more intricate webs of relationships throughout the player base instead of just boxing people up into little seperate groups.
Healz4u you are so correct. I found alot of this article backwards, the aurthor has a starnge perspective or this was written after a 12 hour stint of MMORPG.
"Since I can't get any of my RL buddies to play MMOGs I usually play solo...so if a MMOG doesn't have a strong solo game I don't play it." - Poopypants
Why dont you just play a singleplayer game? Its cheaper. I find playing with people is much more fun than playing beside someone.
I guess you would be amazed how many people like to pay to play MMOs online on an regular basis and merely join a group while they are doing so. Personally I know some colleagues and myself. Others log in and almost instantly look for a group to join. Some years ago I was accepting groups waymore often than I'm nowadays.
My main reason for soloing a lot is I can go /afk whenever I want and I can take my time to read questlore and discover the world the way I want. Also I'm sick of being disappointed by certain random group members.
So why MMO at all? Because I still can chat and trade with strangers and once in a while even join some strangers to do something with them whenever it seems appropriate to to do in a group, maybe only for half an hour.
I still enjoy grouping with my buddies from time to time but often we just don't play the same games anymore so soloing for me often is the next best thing.
If as a MMO developer you don't address players like me you'll probably get a modern Everquest. I wouldn't buy it.
The massively multiplayer online world is not geared toward the solo player. To a certain extent, it's logical: time is progress and multiple players can contribute more time; the tougher encounters have greater rewards, but take more power to conquer. And why have thousands of players congregated in a world if they aren't going to spend time together.
The world is indeed geared toward the solo player but designed so that said player is encouraged to play in groups whenever possible. Human beings, by nature, do not like to group and will only do so for survival or mating. Since we're not entering these games to mate, we group to survive.
Your logic is a fallacy - more players do not necessarily equate to more time. If 5 players log in at the same time and spend the same 5 hours completing the same task, it's no different than if 1 player did. Tougher encounters do not always equate to greater rewards, sometimes they are simply tougher.
And, people do not congregate in a world to spend time together. This is sociology 101. People study in a library rather at home because, although we do not like to group, we are social animals; we enjoy the comfort of a body near us just not too near us. We go out to the movies rather than stay home because we need a social environment even though we don't interract with people in the movie theatre. They're just there.
People enter an MMO instead of a single player game because they want the experience and the option to interract -the option is key.
Once you look at your thesis, then you'll see why everyone else has picked the rest apart.
Kelly
If you want to truly learn how to Build and Maintain a Successful Guild, then read our article. Unlike others we've played both PVE and PVP games, and have done quite well in both.
This author may understand MMORPG's, but clearly doesn't understand much about a real guild.
Allthough I sympathise with Healz4u's comments, I agree with Ophelia -more tact should be in place.
Let's not let out frustration from today's mmo's on the author for trying to do her job. She tried to stirr up a conversation IMO and she succeded at that. (at least I want to believe that's what the intention was, otherwise there's no educational purpose
)
As it's aparent to all, the RP guilds, the acieving guilds, the mercenary guilds, the elite guilds, etc where overlooked under the shadow of the zerg guilds. We all know in truth that most times it's those mid-sized guilds who shape and steer a game's society and the nameless masses are the ones who join the "top of the mountain" zerg guilds.
Now, I'd like to say 'the author overlooked it', but in truth it's the game industry in general. I see developers consulting guild leaders (I won't mention names) that are pretty vocal on forums but the guild they lead lacks depth and character. I've been asked again, is character essential in a guild? -No, but it's good to have. It's what separates you from the others and what adds flavor to a game.
And that is another great reason to have a guild: it adds to immersion. It's a personalization of the game on your own sphere. I've battled again and again (PvP or PvE) on same situations, solo, PUG, or with guildmates. It wasn't as enjoyable every time. The reason is that you want to have that colorful crazy dude in your guild that can grand you every unexpected outcome possible. The carebear miss who manages to get everybody killed. The fanatic "palladin savior", the wise croud controller, the map-maker ranger, the pot-crafter, the loyal sub-officer... You need them ALL.
'Cause mmo's are supposed to be fun but there's no NPC telling you jokes. There's no AI that can generate chaotic reactions. No raid boss that can suprise you with singing and dancing.
When I say to my guys "this ain't Kansas anymore" they know all kinds of crazy shit is about to happen. We'll most likely die, but we'll have a blast getting there. A dungeon crawl is baptized "naked party" and a bunch of players with no armor on, dances next to skellies and basiliscs. We turn our backs to the dungeon boss in order to get a postcard pic for those who couldn't join us and we drink and tell eachother dirty jokes. Now, I've tried that with Khalid and Jaheira but they where too tight :P
...now consider that most of us are family people 30+yo with over 7 years mmo experience. -it's not the lack of seriousness or goal or game dedication, it's the need to have fun!
Yes, Laura, we form guilds for excelence, for world domination, for rankings, for achievements, for grand battles, even to stop being lonely -as some said. But most of all we form guilds to have fun. It's called "playing mmorpg games"
Most players play these games to have fun and these are the ones who enjoy the games. When things start to become mandatory, the game becomes like a second job and this is when people start to burn out quickly imho.
Jenner
Nice article, altho I myself find the evolution of guilds from the early casual-group style game-related club on to the massive outside-source related metaguilds that sometimes cross over into completely differetn genres of gameplay and sometimes even into activities that aren't related to games anymore.
The last years have seen a development where the guild outgrows the game, genre and even medium. That's something I'd like to see more articles about tbh.
This article contains information that a brand new gamer can find out on their own in under a week of playing just about any MMO. I find there to be nothing new, nothing that any gamer could possibly find out on there own in no time at all. Also nothing new for any seasoned vet. Can't say that this article was a good waste of time.
Having played EQ1, you might be more familiar with the term 'feeder guild'. These were casual/family/social guilds that often found their highest level members leaving to join progression based guilds. While often this wouldn't be a problem (because former members would often return with their "uber" gear and help the guild accomplish certain feats - saw this a lot with Ragefire and Chardok Royals, way back before they were soloable), it did give the appearance of being 'minor league'.
What I really don't understand is all of the folks who claim to dislike to disagree with the traditional MMO guild model....but still continue to play games that follow that line of thinking. Change is not going to occur without a major impetus. If you want a paradigm shift, you have to send the message to the people in charge of making these decisions that a new day needs to dawn. The reason these mechanisms appear to be recycled from game to game is because, it's the tried and true. No one's going to risk their $30 million dollar investment on a game system or design philosophy that they have no reason to believe will succeed.
I guess I'm just not seeing the logic of decrying a line of design thinking and then repeatedly falling for the okey-doke. Personally, I'm pretty much ambivalent about guilds in general. I've been in cutting edge guilds with steep requirements ("If you're on dialup, don't even bother applying....", "If your computer is more than 18 months old, it's not likely you'll be accepted", etc) as well as 'come as you are' casual guilds and pretty much everything in between. So the status quo doesn't bother me any. While I agree with much of what Neanderthal said, I don't think it's likely that a game is going to come out that abandons the guild mechanism totally. At least not a mainstream kinda title (so A Tale in the Desert doesn't really count IMO). Guilds (no matter what name they're given) are considered a keystone feature of MMOs, by and large, so scrapping them altogether, even if it's for the best, most likely isn't in the cards.
At least not right now...
What is it about the 'guild' that makes it essential in an MMO? I mean, if all the guild tags in all the MMOs disappeared tomorrow, we'd still group, we'd still have friends, and we'd still have fun.
Want proof? The next time a GM spawns a spontaneous live event, observe what happens. You automatically have players from all sorts of guilds, from all sorts of classes, spontaneously working together and having fun without needing guildchat, TS, vent, or this "trust" business I hear so much from the gilderburgers. Now the players who participate don't need some gimmick like tags, or "social bonds," or "trust" to know what to do. They simply do it, and they find out that "My goodness! We all know how to play!"
So why do we have guilds? I'm afraid this is something that we just had as a neat cosmetic function back in UO, that we just kept on keeping as a relic. However, we have much more sophisticated ways of organizing players. Factions are something that could solve a lot of accessability issues, immersion issues, and metagaming issues that guilds cause, and function in all the ways that guilds do currently. Realm versus realm is another way of organizing players. Perhaps common areas can be creatively used, like in SWG before it got nerfed.
See, guilds are a way of organizing players that cause as many problems as they solve. Whats more is that the problems guilds cause are beyond the scope of the developers to correct, since they rely upon organizational tools independent of the game.
What problems do guilds cause that would not occur in any case, regardless of how players organise themselves in-game? And all but the most casual players will organise themselves; people are instinctively tribal.
I found the article terribly narrow in it's approach. As several others have said, it ignores many of the reasons for the success or otherwise of guilds, and focusses on WoW alone, which results in a picture that bears no relation to my own experience. I am an officer of a medium sized DaoC guild, and my guild hangs together simply because it's full of people who get along.
It's easy to join or leave a guild in DaoC just as it is in WoW. There are no built-in barriers to joining or penalties for leaving. Guilds are easy to create, too. But whilst I get the impression that guild-churn is high in WoW, it's not in DaoC, at least not on the two servers I've played on. Why? I think it comes down to the fact that guild memership is not forced. It's non-essential, but nevertheless can convery huge advantages, and not just the benefits of a group of people ready to assist with tasks/kit/money. Because it's not forced, there is always an expectation that guild members will be loyal to the guild. This expectation benefits the community as well as the individual.
There are major social implications associated with guild membership. Established guilds have reputations to uphold; they will not welcome players who will tarnish that reputation, conversely players who join a guild will benefit from the positive image that guild has built up; joining a top-flight guild has kudos. A guild is usually also a strong social network, and upsetting a member of your guild will often make you a pariah within the guild. Being kicked out of a guild may make it very difficult for you to be accepted into a new guild. So guilds act as the enforcers of behavioural standards within the community. Obviously, guilds do not all agree on behavioural standards, but even where a guild is known to allow playstyles that the general community disapproves of, the fact that people who enjoy that playstyle are gathered in one place and readily identifiable makes them easier to deal with.
The tribal instinct does of course have its downside - rivalries develop. But as long as those rivalries do not become too bitter and vicious, surely those are also good for the game? Most games are designed to be competetive, after all.