MMORPGs Dead; Phoenix, Arise!

"Follow the yellow brick road," Pharaoh commanded.

As he spoke, a golden pathway appeared. It led to an area with an obelisk-like statue and a giant mushroom.

"Touch the stele," Pharaoh said.

The obelisk showed me a menu of the various quests available to me and my peers. It showed how many had completed each one, or at what step they had stopped. This, Pharaoh explained, let him know where people had difficulty so he could make adjustments accordingly.

"And the mushroom?" I asked.

"That controls the weather."

In an earlier article I proclaimed MMORPGs dead. I left hope, though, for a renaissance in the genre. A lot of assumptions need to be rethought, starting with the principles underlying virtual-world design.

The appearing-road trick and the magic mushroom widget were behind the scenes during the first "telling" of the MMORPG A Tale in the Desert, with its lead developer and head gamemaster as my guide. The experience convinced me that there are two critical elements to making an MMORPG truly dynamic: human gamemasters and the tools to let them affect the game world. But they alone can't provide the spark that makes a virtual world seem alive and welcoming to the avatars of human players.

There can't be, of course, "one true ultimate" MMORPG. To get as close as we can, though, we have to get the hell out of WoW-land and chart a course for a proof-of-concept environment. I, of course, have a map that'll lead us to the golden treasure of a dynamic world. Yarr!

Erase the Graphics

The shiny is the enemy of the dynamic. Graphics, any graphics, add an immense burden to the development of a game. This burden grows when you're building world-changing tools into the game engine from the ground up. It also grows when the graphics go from being a representation of the game world to a simulation of it. Once the world-as-representation becomes the world, you add in complications that require meticulous testing: will players get stuck on the geometry? Will any of them use an unintended effect as an exploit, like climbing up on a rock monsters can't access to snipe at them? Although ATITD is a 3D graphical game, it was designed without any combat whatsoever, and so spares itself the difficulties manifest in depicting real-time conflict without the bugaboos of "laaaaag", "balance", and "hax".

Give the World a Brain

Neurons, not polygons! CPU cycles are better spent on artificial intelligence for mobile NPCs. There are three potential levels of AI. The first gives them little tasks to carry out using what is called a "planning" system. An NPC has particular needs and sorts through its commands to create a plan to meet them. Such "independent" NPCs would make the world seem more alive. At the next level of complexity, though, planning systems can lead to automatic quest generation. These won't be terribly exciting; expect a lot of FedEx quests. At its most complex, AI would give NPCs limited conversational abilities. Again, it wouldn't rival a discussion with a GM who has temporarily "possessed" an NPC. Don't expect Landru to replace the man behind the curtain just yet.

Let the Inmates Run the Asylum Cafeteria

Every sandbox has some cat poop in it. Player-created content would ease the burden on human GMs just as automatically-generated quest content would. Most of it would make the product of the AI look like a lost work of Tolkien's. Some of it would be playable, and a very little of it would be gold. Making content engages those players looking for a creative outlet, and that is one of the main points in favor of giving limited creation tools to players. Player interaction and building tools give players an investment in the world. Consider the difference between "over there is where we repelled the orc horde" and "over there is the statue I built to mark where we repelled the orc horde". The world should be self-contained as much as possible, with in-game message boards, a mail system that can accommodate items, and an OOC area. Players shouldn't have to go outside the game world to have their fun, unless their "fun" is writing slash fanfiction. Having player-run (and GM-overseen) political and legal systems would engage many and add to the "aliveness" of the game world.

A text MMO with a few low-intelligence bots and player graffiti doesn't seem like an auspicious start. Consider, though, that EverQuest and other graphical MMORPGs were essentially the word-based MUDs made digital flesh. What seems like atavism is actually the first step to setting things right. A persistent, dynamic, multiplayer adventure world is within reach, and once the process of becoming fully 3D happens to this genre reborn, it will look as different from WoW as a Lotus does a Yugo.

Comments

I really don't think starting from scratch is the right answer. I think it's a road we've already traveled; walking it again will only lead us back to where we are now.

A text MMO with a few low-intelligence bots and player graffiti doesn't seem like an auspicious start. Consider, though, that EverQuest and other graphical MMORPGs were essentially the word-based MUDs made digital flesh. What seems like atavism is actually the first step to setting things right.

You make the point right here yourself; today's MMOs are nothing more than the MUDs of yesteryear given digital flesh.

Give the World a Brain

Neurons, not polygons! CPU cycles are better spent on artificial intelligence for mobile NPCs. There are three potential levels of AI. The first gives them little tasks to carry out using what is called a "planning" system. An NPC has particular needs and sorts through its commands to create a plan to meet them. Such "independent" NPCs would make the world seem more alive. At the next level of complexity, though, planning systems can lead to automatic quest generation. These won't be terribly exciting; expect a lot of FedEx quests. At its most complex, AI would give NPCs limited conversational abilities. Again, it wouldn't rival a discussion with a GM who has temporarily "possessed" an NPC. Don't expect Landru to replace the man behind the curtain just yet.

I think this right here is a good start for making the world seem more alive. I don't know where to start at, but I think it could do a lot. Player created content is another good way. SWG showcased that extremely well before SoE drowned it in supposed mercy.

By and large, I think the biggest problem with MMOs, and really gaming in general, is the mass market. The people that Blizzard caters to with WoW. The people that are ultimately at fault for the constant $60 a pop Madden rehash games. The reason that the market is so flooded with crappy games in general. People like us, who would become involved in a dynamic, truly persistant world where events had lasting impact are simply far outnumbered by those who wouldn't. However, there is a light in the tunnel for something like this; EVE has shown that a small market MMO can do well.

AnimeJ wrote:

By and large, I think the biggest problem with MMOs, and really gaming in general, is the mass market. The people that Blizzard caters to with WoW. The people that are ultimately at fault for the constant $60 a pop Madden rehash games. The reason that the market is so flooded with crappy games in general.

...

http://armory.worldofwarcraft.com/#c...

Oh, so it's your fault then?

I hate to be that dick, but blaming people who play WoW and having a link to your character in your sig is just extremely amusing.

Actually I agree that to create something new within this genre you will have to start completely from scratch at least from a conceptual perspective. Obviously not reusing something like tried and true network code and database structure might not be the most brilliant approach. I feel that if we try to build a game using what is already on the market we risk resigning ourselves to mediocrity. You couldn't tack dynamic content onto WoW or improve the AI or add in player generated content and suddenly have a completely new and innovative game. You would disrupt the current game mechanics and quite possibly end up with a worse game than what is already on the table. I don't think you could design a game that appeals to the same grind grind grind and collect ph4tz mentality of current MMORPGs that is also based around dynamic and player/gm generated content.

You can simply look through the Dynamic MMORPG thread I still haven't finished to see people's thoughts on this. Half of the responses are "OMG someone else might get to kill some ubermob that I can't?" or "Only some players would have the opportunity to experience something this way before it changes forever?!". The whole idea is that the game is an evolving experience. Each encounter should be a somewhat unique experience. This type of game would not cater to you sitting at Derv camp 3 for 16 hours straight killing the same 5 mobs over and over again any more than it would cater to clearing every mob in a dungeon, hopping out, clicking the reset button, and clearing them all over again. The mobs in this type of game are there to give the impression that the world is alive, provide another means of interacting with the environment, and to allow for events, actions, conflicts, etc that do not require the direct interaction of players. Unlike WoW and most existing MMOs the NPCs/Mobs/Enemies/Monsters/whatever are not there as prepackaged content to just grind through to get to bigger and better content.

The problem is really only the mass market because of WoW. Prior to WoW there was the potential that something new and innovative could have taken the MMO world by storm and changed the face of MMORPGs fo' evah! Unfortunately with 8.5 million subscribers or whatever they are up to these days I think investers are thinking they will have a harder time selling something completely new to people who will simply be looking for WoW 2.0. They are probably right. For those of us who have been playing MMOs for 8+ years the thought of seeing something other than the same old tired model we are used to sounds wonderful. To someone who just picked up WoW a year ago and only recently got their "sea legs" in the world of MMOs having the rug pulled out from under them in a new game will probably just send them back to WoW.

You also have to consider the nerdiness factor : P While a dynamic MMO may not really require an extensive use of thees and thous for "traditional" mmo roleplaying it would require a bit more of a suspension of disbelief as well as a greater involvement in the community to work out properly in my opinion. It's one thing to "let your nerdy flourish" by kicking some ass in a relatively nerdy environment... And quite another to be a part of creating an online nerd society. It's sorta like the difference between having a good time going to ren fest every year vs being an active member of an SCA or Amtgard group... : P

Anyway the point is that while WoW may be the "gateway drug" that encourages more interest in other types of MMOs for some I am thinking that for the majority it is probably only going to encourage interest in other games like WoW.

*shrug*

It's easy to bag on WoW, but let's not. I think the idea is to bag on the audience that plays it and enjoys it... again, no amount of complaining about people who like smooth, polished, cartoony fun in their MMO is going to make those people stop liking the WoW-type experience.

Alternatives are:
a. To build other MMOs that appeal to the WoW core audience, burying innovation deep within those games
b. Building MMOs for a different core audience.

Sounds (to me) that the OP is thinking about that other audience... Maybe a better question is not -
How can we alienate WoW players?
- but -
How can we build an audience of players that are looking for a deeper, more interactive experience? How can we identify these people and what kind of message would draw them in? Since we've got a theoretically finite budget, what kind of innovation out of those above would be perfect to focus on first - and what kind of game would entertain this audience while encouraging them to look for 'more' in their MMO experience?

Sounds like someone should start their own MUD or MUSH. I hear the MUX codebase is pretty popular these days.

KingMob wrote:

How can we build an audience of players that are looking for a deeper, more interactive experience? How can we identify these people and what kind of message would draw them in? Since we've got a theoretically finite budget, what kind of innovation out of those above would be perfect to focus on first - and what kind of game would entertain this audience while encouraging them to look for 'more' in their MMO experience?

I think this audience already exists. I know plenty of people who play WoW who would like something different. It just doesn't exist. Most games that try to offer something different have one or more of 3 problems in my opinion:

1.) It's too radically different such as ATITD. While the whole player driven concept is awesome having no combat in game is going to turn off most players. I know this is why I don't think I would ever be interested. Another example would be EVE where you essentially play as a ship.

2.) Dev shops with innovative concepts try to bite off more than they can chew. With a finite budget and time frame for release you cannot include everything including the kitchen sink in your game. Some things are unneccessary or simply nice to haves. Save them for an expansion and release a solid game built around the core concepts you envision.

3.) Horrible implementation (often related to number 2). An MMORPG is a giant clusterf@#$ of an undertaking. Designing a successful one is not something that is likely to be accomplish by you and two of your buddies coding away in your mom's basement. A lot of these games have qreat ideas but without the skills and resources to bring them to life these games will most likely fail in terms of market share and income (shadowbane, horizons, face of mankind, neocron, rubies of eventide, etc etc).

In order to capture this audience lurking within the masses I feel you will have to create a game that is as solid as at least something like DAoC or Everquest (preferably something as solid as WoW) that is built around these alternate concepts. Throwing together a game that is filled to the brim with innovation that plays like Blade Mistress isn't going to steal this audience away from the game they are currently settling for. I would rather be disappointed with a lot of the game play in WoW than suffer through 90% of a newer game just to get to the 10% I really enjoy.

I think this is why so many of the "If you don't like WoW then play something else and shut up" type posts are amusing. There really isn't much else to play in terms of MMORPGs. If you are looking to play a game that is mostly tolerable you choices are WoW, Vanguard which is becoming more like WoW every day, EQ2 which is not all that different than WoW, or a game that is at least 5+ years old (EQ, DAoC, AO, etc). None of these games are different enough from WoW to tolerate all of the problems they contain, dealing with old technology, or simply trying to start over from scratch and play catchup in a 5+ year old game. So, while unsatisfied, people still continue to play WoW (though I personally haven't in many months). *shrug*

What you're describing reminds me of this: Remember The Ice Chicken.

I've never played UO, so I'm not sure if that article fall in line with what you had in mind.

Why do we have to have so many fantasy MMO games? Although there are a few non fantasy games out there, all the new ones coming to the marketplace are in a fantasy setting. Why can't the publishers try a new genre. I have a tendency to stay away from these games just because of the huge amounts of time they suck up. However, if some studion came out with a decent horror MMO I might cave.

Thing is, while I'm no WoW devotee, I can't abide bad production values. Watching the videos from their site, I feel like it's not making enough steps in the right directions to justify the sacrifies in video and audio.

I still think it comes down to both opening up player-created content and having a good player base (somehow -- I can dream), but if it isn't even as solid looking as King's Quest: Mask of Eternity, then I might not be mature enough to give it a second chance.

Edit: I should add that I'm a huge fan of ideas like player-run and player-created complex economies and governments. I think most developers (and reviewers) don't give them enough time to develop, though. Nobody can be expected to operate and maintain a savings and loan in an anarchic wilderness from day 1, after all.

Indignant wrote:

Why do we have to have so many fantasy MMO games? Although there are a few non fantasy games out there, all the new ones coming to the marketplace are in a fantasy setting.

I think this is probably a combination of many things. Like the fact that most people probably associate RPGs with D&D or similar games that are set in a fantasy setting. Even RPGs that include Sci-Fi elements tend to be a combination of both Sci-Fi and Fantasy settings (Like the Final Fantasy Series or Anarchy Online post Shadowlands). I think it's also probably easier to make this type of game in a fantasy setting as it's pretty easy to explain away things with magic. Trying to do it with Sci Fi I think you are somewhat limited to explaining things away with "nano machines" or the like. The fact that it's fairly tried and true probably contributes to it a good deal as well. Then again maybe all of the dev shops interested in making mmogs have more fantasy nerds than they do sci-fi nerds. I would personally like to see more Sci-Fi games on the market or at least something with a combination of the two or maybe some sort of steampunk type setting (like escaflowne or last exile).

Wordsmythe wrote:

Thing is, while I'm no WoW devotee, I can't abide bad production values. Watching the videos from their site, I feel like it's not making enough steps in the right directions to justify the sacrifies in video and audio.

I still think it comes down to both opening up player-created content and having a good player base (somehow -- I can dream), but if it isn't even as solid looking as King's Quest: Mask of Eternity, then I might not be mature enough to give it a second chance.

That is kinda the point I was trying to get across in way too many words. Typically I post from work so I tend to ramble as I get interrupted constantly and lose my train of thought (yay for adhd). A game has to look decent and be functional to maintain an audience. I would think that a good number of people who play WoW would jump ship should someone provide them with a comparible alternative that was a bit deeper.

mven wrote:
Wordsmythe wrote:

Thing is, while I'm no WoW devotee, I can't abide bad production values. Watching the videos from their site, I feel like it's not making enough steps in the right directions to justify the sacrifies in video and audio.

I still think it comes down to both opening up player-created content and having a good player base (somehow -- I can dream), but if it isn't even as solid looking as King's Quest: Mask of Eternity, then I might not be mature enough to give it a second chance.

That is kinda the point I was trying to get across in way too many words. Typically I post from work so I tend to ramble as I get interrupted constantly and lose my train of thought (yay for adhd). A game has to look decent and be functional to maintain an audience. I would think that a good number of people who play WoW would jump ship should someone provide them with a comparible alternative that was a bit deeper.

Ah, there's the difference. I want the standard WoWer to stay the heck away from the beautiful ice sculpture that is my dream MMO.

Haha I am not necessarily referring to the average WoW player. More along the lines of the ones who want something more but play WoW for lack of something better to play in the MMO realm. There are a few decent human beings who play WoW. I just don't think the game is designed to foster the type of community that encourages people to be decent to one another. So the asshats are more prevalent.

These terms have been brought up before in this thread but let me point them out in greater detail since this attributes the player base and the type of games they want or at least think they want.

For over a decade now MUDs have existed. They are hugely popular in the world of geeks and for many years this was our Multi-Player interaction before the times of FPS, RTS, Battlenet, MMO and everything else we think of as current day multi-player games. Growing pains of popular MUDs mirror almost exactly the growing pains of modern day MMO games with the only exception of graphical interface issues (falling through objects, object looks, colors and hit detection, etc.). The decision on how to tweak the mechanics of the game are basically the same with various levels of complexity.

Now a large number of people did not enjoy MUDs after a while. They wanted a more dynamic world with more interaction between people and less interaction between player and mob. Hack and Slash for XP is the core of all MUDs and MMOs these days. Quests are simply a trail of bread crumbs to follow that lead to more hack and slash or FedEx object transfers. So this small group of rebels wanted something more. Player driven plotlines, more GM interaction and a more dynamic world even if it meant just simple interaction with objects such as building your own house, getting your own vehicle or even just sitting at a chair at a bar and talking to a group at the table. This was a world where you had to work to create the stories instead of simply following the road signs. This is the difference between MUSHs and MUDs.

What people playing MMOs today (the core group who no longer enjoy the hack and slash grind for XP) want exactly what MUSHers wanted when they left MUDs. Simply on a more pretty and graphical scale. Player interaction with each other and this interaction creates storylines. More dynamic world which can and will change depending on player involvement. Direct GM involvement in the form of occasional NPCs and plotlines. Personal player permanency in the form of housing or vehicles. The occasional dungeon crawl or mob experience to fulfill the need for bloodlust from time to time instead of resorting to only PVP as an option.

I have seen this movement before. MUDs to MUSHs. This isn't knew. History has already shown how it needs to be done. Now the makers of MMOs and the public needs to get off their asses and enact the change. This isn't new folks. People have just forgotten it has already happened once and that there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

Cheers.

I think 'Dwarf Fortress Online' might be exactly what y'all are talking 'bout, too bad it doesn't exist.
Someone send Tarn Adams an email.

KingMob wrote:

It's easy to bag on WoW, but let's not. I think the idea is to bag on the audience that plays it and enjoys it... again, no amount of complaining about people who like smooth, polished, cartoony fun in their MMO is going to make those people stop liking the WoW-type experience.

Alternatives are:
a. To build other MMOs that appeal to the WoW core audience, burying innovation deep within those games
b. Building MMOs for a different core audience.

Sounds (to me) that the OP is thinking about that other audience... Maybe a better question is not -
How can we alienate WoW players?
- but -
How can we build an audience of players that are looking for a deeper, more interactive experience? How can we identify these people and what kind of message would draw them in? Since we've got a theoretically finite budget, what kind of innovation out of those above would be perfect to focus on first - and what kind of game would entertain this audience while encouraging them to look for 'more' in their MMO experience?

I think at this point, there is no real way to go back to that. The point I was trying to make, and feel that I didn't is that the problem isn't specifically the mass market of people who play MMOs. The problem is that there is an amazingly successful game out there, which shattered all previous ceilings for what a MMO can achieve in terms of subs.

So, as a result, we find two paths: Go a completely different route, or follow in WoW's wake. Vanguard tried the former, and when it changed course to follow WoW through the reef, it ran aground. There are a couple of articles about mass firings and announcements coming from Sigil, and I'm not going to get into them beyond that.

mven wrote:

You can simply look through the Dynamic MMORPG thread I still haven't finished to see people's thoughts on this. Half of the responses are "OMG someone else might get to kill some ubermob that I can't?" or "Only some players would have the opportunity to experience something this way before it changes forever?!". The whole idea is that the game is an evolving experience. Each encounter should be a somewhat unique experience.

And as has been put forth in that thread, and put off as though it doesn't matter, this is a pretty major issue. As has been expressed by a few in the Hellgate thread, people don't like being locked out of content. A dynamic MMO would do that intrinsically, as it would have to cater to the .01% that gets on stuff from the get-go simply in its nature. I absolutely love the idea, however, given the 'my pace' playstyle I have, I can't help but know that I'll be disappointed, irritated and frustrated at the worst, knowing that I'll be paying my monthly fee, the bulk of which pays for new content that I'll never see. People are simply averse to that kind of world, which is why I don't think we'll ever see an MMO of that nature.

kilroy0097 wrote:

I have seen this movement before. MUDs to MUSHs. This isn't knew. History has already shown how it needs to be done. Now the makers of MMOs and the public needs to get off their asses and enact the change. This isn't new folks. People have just forgotten it has already happened once and that there is no reason to reinvent the wheel.

I think a lot of us have seen it as well. However, I think that those who truly wish for it are a very small grouping. Ultimately, I think that for those people who want a high level of GM interaction, more player events, and thing of this nature simply need to get out of the MMO market entirely.

I suppose what I'm ultimately getting at is that Dynamic MMOs really shouldn't be MMOs at all. They should be graphical MUDs and MUSHs. Smaller worlds, built for a few hundred people at the most. We're carrying on about MMOs, and I think we're trying to shoehorn the genre into the proverbial round hole. Going back to WoW, people have asked for more GM events. However, I think what people look past is the amount of manpower it would take to do something like that in WoW. Unless you were to create a method by which a single group of people could orchestrate such an event across however many realms there are currently, it's clearly not a possibility. I don't care what kind of revenue your game brings in, you simply could not payroll a 3-5 man team per realm and have money to maintain the servers, let alone continue development.

animej wrote:

And as has been put forth in that thread, and put off as though it doesn't matter, this is a pretty major issue. As has been expressed by a few in the Hellgate thread, people don't like being locked out of content. A dynamic MMO would do that intrinsically, as it would have to cater to the .01% that gets on stuff from the get-go simply in its nature. I absolutely love the idea, however, given the 'my pace' playstyle I have, I can't help but know that I'll be disappointed, irritated and frustrated at the worst, knowing that I'll be paying my monthly fee, the bulk of which pays for new content that I'll never see. People are simply averse to that kind of world, which is why I don't think we'll ever see an MMO of that nature.

I guess what I am having a problem conveying here is that this really isn't the case. It wouldn't be like a jacked version of WoW where Molten Core only gets to be cleared once by the first guild who gets there, takes all the loot, and wipes the place out. The rest of the players wouldn't be missing out on all of the ph4tz and l33t boss encounters because there really wouldn't be anything like that. The idea with this type of game is to make every experience as unique as possible. You won't have a long scripted encounter that you can repeat over and over again. You would be fighting dynamically created NPCs who respond in various ways to your actions or you would be fighting other players who's actions are pretty unpredictable.

This is not to say that there can't be unique NPCs or bosses or anything like that but they would be more along the lines of something you would find in GM or World Events rather than just a bunch of the typical endlessly respawning named mobs from other MMORPGs. Within the dynamic NPC generation you could still have more unique mobs but I am thinking more along the lines of like the named mobs you find at the end of say AO missions or something where they are more difficult and drop more generic loot than the rest of the mobs in the area. Basically the idea is to avoid the standard repeated dungeon crawl and/or spawn camping you find in other games so the whole "OMG Guild XYZ got here first!" thing will not be as big of a deal as people make it out to be.

AnimeJ wrote:

I really don't think starting from scratch is the right answer. I think it's a road we've already traveled; walking it again will only lead us back to where we are now.

I don't think it would necessarily; what I meant was to break things down to the foundations so that "MMORPG 2.0" (barf) would evolve into what we'd like current MMOs to be.

mven wrote:

Obviously not reusing something like tried and true network code and database structure might not be the most brilliant approach. I feel that if we try to build a game using what is already on the market we risk resigning ourselves to mediocrity.

Definitely. From a practical design standpoint, it'll be a matter of distinguishing baby from bathwater. Obviously using a middleware billing system, for instance, shouldn't compromise the AI of your mobs.

mven wrote:

It's sorta like the difference between having a good time going to ren fest every year vs being an active member of an SCA or Amtgard group.

Very much so. Those mead-swilling, turkey-drumstick-chomping sumFemale Doggoes want WoW; the dynamic MMORPG crowd will have to give up some passive entertainment and become contributing members of a community.

KingMob wrote:

How can we build an audience of players that are looking for a deeper, more interactive experience?

They're already there.

KingMob wrote:

How can we identify these people and what kind of message would draw them in?

That's a good question; I'm not certain what would work beyond letting your existence be known and let the seekers find you.

KingMob wrote:

Since we've got a theoretically finite budget, what kind of innovation out of those above would be perfect to focus on first - and what kind of game would entertain this audience while encouraging them to look for 'more' in their MMO experience?

Iono...geez, these questions are getting hard! The one indispensible tool I think is the dynamic capability for GMs. Like what Neverwinter Nights and Vampire: the Masquerade had.

BadMojo wrote:

Sounds like someone should start their own MUD or MUSH. I hear the MUX codebase is pretty popular these days.

I believe you're making a sincere recommendation, but just in case: Shut your Female Doggo mouth! Shut it!! ;-)

I can't evaluate the merits of the various codebases for this purpose. Anyone?

McChuck wrote:

What you're describing reminds me of this: Remember The Ice Chicken.

I've never played UO, so I'm not sure if that article fall in line with what you had in mind.

That's the dynamic capability I figure should be a given, so: Shut your--er, sorry.

Not having had much early UO experience, I was surprised to see they had that capability. I wonder how steep the learning curve one of their toolset was.

Indignant wrote:

Why do we have to have so many fantasy MMO games? Although there are a few non fantasy games out there, all the new ones coming to the marketplace are in a fantasy setting. Why can't the publishers try a new genre. I have a tendency to stay away from these games just because of the huge amounts of time they suck up. However, if some studion came out with a decent horror MMO I might cave.

Apparently, as soon as you introduce a gun, you have quibbling up to your eyebrows. Even pewpew guns will have people debating angstroms with great angst.

Horror would be tough. Very, very tough. It'd have to be either very short-duration, or a zombie-world kind of situation.

kilroy0097 wrote:

Growing pains of popular MUDs mirror almost exactly the growing pains of modern day MMO games.... I have seen this movement before. MUDs to MUSHs.

Thank you for putting this into perspective. I would love to get some historical background on the kind of shift you describe.

RolandofGilead wrote:

I think 'Dwarf Fortress Online' might be exactly what y'all are talking 'bout, too bad it doesn't exist.

Again, I can't speak to this; DF addicts care to chime in? I thought it was more of a god-game type of sim, though the behavior of the dwarves seemed remarkable.

AnimeJ wrote:

I suppose what I'm ultimately getting at is that Dynamic MMOs really shouldn't be MMOs at all. They should be graphical MUDs and MUSHs. Smaller worlds, built for a few hundred people at the most.

Consider that 400 subscribers at $5.95 per month produce monthly revenue of $2380. It's something. The continued existence of Iron Realms (they're often a sponsor here) and Skotos Tech make me confident that somebody with modest aims can make do.

EDIT: Must hit Preview button.

Those who attempt to copy WoW for success are doomed to failure.. as are those who ignore what made WoW so successful.

Ahh.. the irony of this market.

The equation of WoW is find what appeals to the most people and focus on that. Create an easy interface, fun animations, decent storyline, quick rewards. Make people feel good playing the game. Make them feel they are getting somewhere quick for their work. Lots of reward for minimal work. It's an equation that has worked well and has worked better than any MMORPG and just about any game ever put out.

Lets look at the top 10 selling PC games of all time.
Source: Answers.com
1. The Sims (16 million)[3]
2. Diablo II (15 million) [1]
3. StarCraft (9.5 million, includes StarCraft: Brood War)[1]
4. Half-Life (8 million)[2]
5. World of Warcraft (8 million customers worldwide)[5]
* World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade [expansion pack] (2.4 million)[6]
6. Myst (6 million)[4]
7. The Sims 2 (5 million)[7]
8. The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (4 million, including Xbox release)[8]
9. RollerCoaster Tycoon (4 million for the original in North America alone)[9]
10. Half-Life 2 (4 million)[10]

Who are the winners in that list? Maxis with Sims products, Blizzard with Diablo, Starcraft and WoW, Valve with Half Life and it's Engine. Who perhaps made the most money, I would say Blizzard because of the monthly fees.

The next greatest MMO will take what WoW did, slap a newer graphics engine on it and offer even more detail to specific direction and individual personalization. The first part of the MMO will be just like WoW. The end game content will be harder and more like, for lack of good examples, Vanguard. Start out appealing to the general masses. Find a good plateau in which to have them get to. Have them able to continue in end game content that appeals to them. Then take it the next step and start really specializing the characters, their classes and the content. Make it more difficult. This for the serious gamers to get to. Then finally make end game content that is extremely difficult and maybe even add another level of specialization. This is for the fanatical hardcore MMOer. Wrap it up in a big bow, make it look pretty, offer user content in the ways of UI customization. The only thing to do next is to protect the game from itself. Attempt to weed out any reason for gold sellers and power levelers to exist. If you can't prevent that through mechanics then prevent it through vigilance and cracking down on it effectively and constantly.

Maybe more on this later if I think of more.

The end game content will be harder and more like, for lack of good examples, Vanguard.

did/does Vanguard even have end game content? I was under the impression reading FoH (before my eyes bleed from fanboi rage) that raid content was still in development.

TheGameguru wrote:
The end game content will be harder and more like, for lack of good examples, Vanguard.

did/does Vanguard even have end game content? I was under the impression reading FoH (before my eyes bleed from fanboi rage) that raid content was still in development.

I don't mean end game content like Vanguard. I meant that end game content would be like Vanguard. As in the difficulty level of adventuring in Vanguard was much greater and involved than the adventuring difficulty of WoW. I know I found it and am still finding it much harder to level in Vanguard than I did in WoW.

End game content in Vanguard is not really there. There are certainly a few areas in place and are very difficult but for the most part it's incomplete.

Perhaps a good approach for a small company with MMO development goals would be to create a world editor tool and a small starter area and release it as an online tool/minigame to the public wherein the world is shared, so that people can use the tools and create the world around them building upon others creations, or if someone has locked their area, building new areas. Building an area would include removing or moving trees, altering the environment, building structures, digging into the ground and/or piling up the ground.

Make this application free to use and require users to agree that everything created in this sandbox world belongs to said company (to possibly be used in a future online game)

With the ability to edit this world, said company just saved themselves a lot of time developing the environment, and if they discover skilled environment tool users, they could even contact them for employment...

Meanwhile, release an editor tool as an online "mini-game" to create characters under the same premise as above.

Meanwhile, release an editor tool for items/weapons/vehicles, etc..

Meanwhile, said company can select from and edit graphics created by the general public, and spend most of its initial financial resources concentrating their production time on coding AI, physics, storyline, quests, and dynamic content, etc..

Has this been done before?

Is this a stupid idea?

Would this save said game design company money?

kilroy0097 wrote:

The first part of the MMO will be just like WoW. The end game content will be harder and more like, for lack of good examples, Vanguard.

Hrm IMO the end game content of WoW is not terrible in terms of difficulty at least on the raiding side of things. My problem with challenge in WoW is that it is lacking everywhere but the "end game". WoW is basically setting itself up to become EQ over the years. Its end game seems to be focused on raiding. I think the reason WoW can sell it better than EQ can is because in WoW there is pretty much no direct competition. In EQ one uber guild could pretty much lock out the rest of the server from every progressing beyond a certain point should they have chosen to do so. In WoW competition is just over "firsts". Everyone can do everything should they choose. To me this is a bad thing as I prefer the competative aspects and dislike almost all forms of instancing. I know however that I am in the extreme minority here.

I don't think any game of this type will match WoW's success for several years. My hope is that dev shops will realize this, and focus on turning out profitable niche games that offer something more rather than trying and failing to churn out the next "WoW killer".

. To me this is a bad thing as I prefer the competative aspects and dislike almost all forms of instancing. I know however that I am in the extreme minority here.

Mven meet Mr. Quaid..

Ahh.. a match made in heaven.

Hrm IMO the end game content of WoW is not terrible in terms of difficulty at least on the raiding side of things

Thats interesting that you think that.. either your so good an MMORPG player that your view of "normal" and "hard" are terribly skewed. I've played MMORPG's for 20+ years.. and quite a few of us in my EQ guild which was pretty hardcore.. could 2 and even 3 box characters in all the raids.. with ZERO problems. But in WoW I can barely 2 box my Druid and Warrior in some of the harder quests.. and there would be ZERO chance of 2 Boxing in anything but perhaps the simplest of 5 man runs.. forget raiding.. I couldnt even fanthom 2 boxing in any of WoW's raids.. well..perhaps Molten Core after the 100th run through.. since there was for the most part very little movement.

thegameguru wrote:

Mven meet Mr. Quaid..

Ahh.. a match made in heaven.

ha ha. Seriously instancing removes/limits the one thing I think MMOs offer over other types of games: Social Interaction. Instancing is probably the worst thing to happen to the genre to date. *shrug*

TheGameGuru wrote:

Thats interesting that you think that.. either your so good an MMORPG player that your view of "normal" and "hard" are terribly skewed. I've played MMORPG's for 20+ years.. and quite a few of us in my EQ guild which was pretty hardcore.. could 2 and even 3 box characters in all the raids.. with ZERO problems. But in WoW I can barely 2 box my Druid and Warrior in some of the harder quests.. and there would be ZERO chance of 2 Boxing in anything but perhaps the simplest of 5 man runs.. forget raiding.. I couldnt even fanthom 2 boxing in any of WoW's raids.. well..perhaps Molten Core after the 100th run through.. since there was for the most part very little movement.

I guess I didn't state that very well. I meant that the challenge level in end game raiding etc in WoW was high enough to be enjoyable. My response was to him saying the end game should be more like Vanguard. I think the end game in WoW is fine (assuming we are only comparing raiding/large group style end game content). In many respects WoW's raid encounters are better than those found in any other game.

As far as playing multiple characters, that just depends on the way the characters play more so than the actual challenge factor IMO. I dual boxed a warrior/priest combo initially in WoW which is pretty damned easy but trying to do two melee classes etc was much more annoying. In EQ you had more specialized classes which allowed you to effectively utilize them to some degree without having to worry so much about positioning or the need to have multiple characters spamming something. For instance you could play a druid, shaman, warrior trio in which you simply slowed/doted with the shaman, buffed/dotted with the druid, and then beat sh*t down with the warrior while occasionally throwing a heal from one of the others and still be relatively effective. I think in WoW you have the issue also where you tend to do more of a "dungeon crawl" than the typical EQ style camping. In my experience the most annoying aspect of playing multiple characters is trying to move them around independently.

Aang wrote:

Perhaps a good approach for a small company with MMO development goals would be to create a world editor tool and a small starter area and release it as an online tool/minigame to the public wherein the world is shared, so that people can use the tools and create the world around them building upon others creations, or if someone has locked their area, building new areas. Building an area would include removing or moving trees, altering the environment, building structures, digging into the ground and/or piling up the ground.

Make this application free to use and require users to agree that everything created in this sandbox world belongs to said company (to possibly be used in a future online game)

With the ability to edit this world, said company just saved themselves a lot of time developing the environment, and if they discover skilled environment tool users, they could even contact them for employment...

Meanwhile, release an editor tool as an online "mini-game" to create characters under the same premise as above.

Meanwhile, release an editor tool for items/weapons/vehicles, etc..

Meanwhile, said company can select from and edit graphics created by the general public, and spend most of its initial financial resources concentrating their production time on coding AI, physics, storyline, quests, and dynamic content, etc..

Has this been done before?

Is this a stupid idea?

Would this save said game design company money?

It's an intriguing idea. My gut response is to say it wouldn't fly as you describe it, but it's worth holding onto.

In a way it sounds like Second Life. My feeling is the majority of netproles would balk at such a "contract" and not feel sufficiently invested from the get-go.

Now, if an entity that had a compelling IP like a famed D&D world did that, I could see it inspiring a flowering of activity and creativity. At worst, it'd be fanfiction applied to world creation.

kilroy0097 wrote:
TheGameguru wrote:
The end game content will be harder and more like, for lack of good examples, Vanguard.

did/does Vanguard even have end game content? I was under the impression reading FoH (before my eyes bleed from fanboi rage) that raid content was still in development.

I don't mean end game content like Vanguard. I meant that end game content would be like Vanguard. As in the difficulty level of adventuring in Vanguard was much greater and involved than the adventuring difficulty of WoW. I know I found it and am still finding it much harder to level in Vanguard than I did in WoW.

End game content in Vanguard is not really there. There are certainly a few areas in place and are very difficult but for the most part it's incomplete.

..and if it were complete? What would it look like?
Are Raids really teh pinnacle of achievement? Is this what everyone aspires to do?

While it is easy to take, take, take, until someone can find a vehicle that allows a MMO player to actively and constructively build, both within the game and the storyline itself, we'll never see the light of day again.

H.P. Lovesauce wrote:
kilroy0097 wrote:

Growing pains of popular MUDs mirror almost exactly the growing pains of modern day MMO games.... I have seen this movement before. MUDs to MUSHs.

Thank you for putting this into perspective. I would love to get some historical background on the kind of shift you describe.

Well while I can't give you exact documented links showing the progression through websites or the such, I will attempt to describe in more detail from my own personal observations what I mean by growing pains of MUDs to MUSHs or MOOs.

Back in the day of MUDs and that very distinct and small online community the internet was a fraction of what it is today. Often yes those that played MUDs were of the population who were more skilled in computers than the normal everyday citizen of today. So the demographic of the people playing MUDs was a bit more narrow. Never less this small demographic decided that MUDs were too limiting. They wanted an online game that was more open to player driven plotlines, to player interaction and to player personal development. In a sense a world that was more dynamic than what they had. The correlation between MUDs and present day MMORPGs in this sense are undeniable.

In a sense modern day MMOs appear to be basically graphical MUDs however they are more than that. Some I would say more follow MOOs in their object orientation. Some MMOs have the ability for players to change the world in smaller ways. For example in UO or Vangaurd players can build houses. Certainly you are working within the confines of the program but you are indeed creating something permanent that did not exist there before. Hence this is MOO interaction. The code exists within the game for the user to create something new and something that never existed before. This is also shown in crafters making items for players to wear on their characters. This is all something that first showed itself in MOOs. So a better representation of current day MMOs would be MOOs. But that wasn't enough for some people. They wanted something even more dynamic and not set into the code of the program. They wanted more than simply killing mobs or NPCs for loot or XP. They wanted diverse player interaction of a grand scale.

Enter MUSHs. Originally created to be a social hosting area for dialog of social communities and indeed, in no small part, an online hook up service, the MUSH environment had to be very diverse in programming and object orientation. The ability for "personas" to enter into a room and gain a description of it as well as being able to investigation each "persona" within it receiving yet another description. The ability to order a drink from the bar and have the code recognize this and produce an object called "Drink" of whatever name and allowing the persona to actually pick up this object from the bar. In doing so telling everyone only seated at the bar that the persona has taken the drink. As you can see this is controlling interaction boundaries with the environment. This made for as real of an environment as you could make in an online environment. Suspension of disbelief honestly was what made this sort of thing stimulating.

Then we come to the combining and growing of MUSHs. Take this highly diverse and customizable environment with creatable objects and all that sort of thing and add a game system on top of that. Add rules, add a back story, add a known Table Top or other RPG and make it exist online through a MUSH. My experiences with MUSHs are limited to only one sort of genre so I can't speak for the countless others that exist out there. So let me speak on World of Darkness MUSHs otherwise known as Vampire the Masquerade, Werewolf the Apocalypse and Mage the Awakening. In these MUSHs we had an almost completely player driven RP experience. Political intrigue and character action is at the highest level of any online RPG. Alliances, enemies, business ventures, territory defense and offensives of all sorts. The combat system was based around random dice roles mediated by an interactive combat system and based upon powers of whatever subsection of your species you were and the skills you accelerated on your personal character. Objects were highly interactive and you had vehicles, buildings that you could enter and in fact design yourself. Object design was based upon an in game editor that had a decent manual on how to construct objects. So my character actually had his own business headquarters and a mansion and a car. All which was described by myself in great detail. I had to code the chairs, the doors that were one way based upon object design. I had working elevators and code protected safes. It was all there and only limited by one's imagination and code ability. Before a building was put onto the grid as public it had to be inspected for loop holes and other errors by the GM in charge of object construction. So it wasn't like someone could just do something ridiculous and expect it to be implemented no questions ask. There are restrictions of a common sense sort and of course a certain restriction of the level of coding. But for the most part everything was fluid.

This the evolution of MUDs to MOOs and to MUSHs. This is the dynamic growth that a great number of people wanted and so coded and made available to the public. Over time it grew and grew and MUSHs became as popular as MUDs. I see no reason why MMOs in present day can't do the same evolution. Just like MUSHs were to MUDs there is a certain want and need for MMOs to evolve to this level of dynamic RP. Certainly there isn't a part of the game for those that just want to level up and grind because these types of games are not built around that. They are built upon interaction and politics. The grand game of Machiavellian intrigue and conflict. I am absolutely certain there is a market for this and if I had the capital to do so I would absolutely create a company that could make this a reality. I believe we have the ability, the technology and the skilled programmers out there to make this happen. We just need the forward thinking and drive to make it a reality. I wish I had the connections in the gaming world and the financial capital to make this happen because if I did I would already be doing so right now.

I hope this all makes sense to those that read this and for those that have read this, thank you for going through this very long prose.

Cheers.

This the evolution of MUDs to MOOs and to MUSHs. This is the dynamic growth that a great number of people wanted and so coded and made available to the public. Over time it grew and grew and MUSHs became as popular as MUDs. I see no reason why MMOs in present day can't do the same evolution. Just like MUSHs were to MUDs there is a certain want and need for MMOs to evolve to this level of dynamic RP. Certainly there isn't a part of the game for those that just want to level up and grind because these types of games are not built around that. They are built upon interaction and politics. The grand game of Machiavellian intrigue and conflict. I am absolutely certain there is a market for this and if I had the capital to do so I would absolutely create a company that could make this a reality. I believe we have the ability, the technology and the skilled programmers out there to make this happen. We just need the forward thinking and drive to make it a reality. I wish I had the connections in the gaming world and the financial capital to make this happen because if I did I would already be doing so right now.

While there may be a market for such a type of game I suspect due the overall complicated nature of such an endeavor it would A) require massive amounts of funding and B) be limited in its mass appeal.

With the ever complicated nature of design it would be a very small segment of players that could even take advantage of such a dynamic system.

TheGameguru wrote:

While there may be a market for such a type of game I suspect due the overall complicated nature of such an endeavor it would A) require massive amounts of funding and B) be limited in its mass appeal.

With the ever complicated nature of design it would be a very small segment of players that could even take advantage of such a dynamic system.

Actually players take advantage of multiples of this all the time. Housing development and item/object placement within the houses in Vanguard. Not only can you create a house on a plot but you can choose which style and how big it will be (limited to one story, fancy or not and two story fancy or not). All you have to do is buy a plot and find a crafter with that Housing style crafting skill you need. Then all the components need to be gotten and then assembled. It's a very long endeavor but it already exists. A similar house/guild hall/fortress kind of building idea was going to take place in Horizons which never took off. Also Headquarters for group in City of Heroes/Villains. With a simple House/building editor I can give someone an option of building every part of a house. I can let them make a house that is of a set template but have lots of them. 3 bedroom, 2 bath home of upper class quality and has a pool in the back yard. Done. Now all they have to do is pick the color of the outside or the skin, the color of the roof, do they have trees in their front yard and allow them to place them. Deck chairs around the pool? Place them. Give them a certain amount of credits which they use to build the house and make objects for it. Allow them to get more house credits by paying in game money to get more.

Interaction with characters and between characters on a very heavy scale already exists on some very hardcore RP servers. Small groups of these players existed in EQ and they exist in WoW. To these people the RP is the most important thing next to leveling and getting cool loot. Mass corporations and massive amounts of RP exist in Eve Online. Sometimes there is a lot of it and sometimes there isn't. Sometimes there are alliances between corporations and corporate wars. All of which is based upon actions of players and interaction of characters either from combat or actual dialog.

Object creation already exists to some point with multiple layer crafting of items. These items didn't exist before and now they do. Now all you need is the visible motions of making or getting such item. For example if Bubba gets a drink from the bar everyone sees the bartender actually make a drink (in generic style is fine) and then put a drink in front of Bubba. If Bubba has to be seated at the bar to do this then he is sitting on a pre-designed object at the bar. The bartender then see that Bubba is sitting at seat #3 and so walks a set path in front of seat #3 and places a drink on the bar which Bubba then picks up. Bubba then gets up and sits at a table with his group. They talk to each other at the table (not using Guild chat or Group chat) with a /tt command (table talk). No one else in the room hears them (reads their words). Of course they could be on Vent also talking. Also allow players to pick from a large assortment of clothing. Not only do they pick the clothing, the style and the color and pattern but also things like expense of the clothing. Designer, Bargain, off the rack at walmart. Whatever makes your character look good and fits their persona.

The possibilities are endless and the development of the game would be an artist's wet dream. The mechanics honestly are the easy part. Object orientation with each other might be a little pain and creating the object editor for custom objects would also be difficult. However I am confident it can be done because a world editor graphical interface will already exist custom for the game and it's engine. A very simplified and dumb down version would be available to players off the game. They then "submit" said object to a GM or a department for such things. If they have the credit in game to get this new object made or house made or whatever and if the object is not bugged or broken for the game world then it's approved. i.e. no flying hovercars in a present day world.

While I would agree that such an endeavor would require a massive amount of funning to complete, I believe it would absolutely have a following and a fan base from day one. Second Life is filled with people who like this sort of thing. MUSHs are filled with players who would love to see a graphical version of what they are playing. Artists and Sims people would love to be able to see a more personal and interactive game. Dynamic game engine with awesome texturing capability and graphics. Add a decent rules base, a good genre, good storyline and a good world design and the rest will be done by the players. Also add GM events from time to time. I believe the game would probably look more like City of Heroes from perspective. This is doable. It takes some of the best parts of multiple MMOs and a bit more imagination and combines them into one game. With the proper advertising I see an initial population of about 25k. Worlds with max 5000 characters on each. Push at least 4k into each world. Have designated GMs of each world. Put about 2 worlds on each server (purely back end stuff).

I think it's possible.