Articles and Commentaries at Web Game Friends
 | MMOs vs the World Part II Posted on Saturday, the 28th of June 2008 at 12:00 am by John (Admin) |
Welcome back, folks, for the second segment of our examination of just what it is that makes MMOs so successful relative to their granddaddies, the MUD, and their red-headed, er, cousins/step-children (it's ok, I'm from the south), the PBBG.
I had originally intended on exploring comparisons of various specific games from each of the distinct communities discussed in the first post, but the recent battle royale between Richard Bartle -- the co-creator and figurehead of the MUD1 game that started the MUD (and really, online gaming) revolution off -- and the massive communities surrounding games like WoW and the upcoming Warhammer Online has got me thinking on the evolutionary progression of online games and how it all relates to the current success rates.
So how did this argument get kicked off (re-ignited, really)? Well, Mr. Bartle gave an interview over at Massively in which he was asked whether he would be playing Warhammer Online. His reply, which was immediately taken by the e-world at large as evidence of his senility, irrelevance, and general asshole-like nature (none of which I personally agree with), was, "I've already played Warhammer Online. It was called World of Warcraft".
As one would expect, this set the interwebz ablaze. This particular statement has been hacked and slashed to death and back, so we'll move on from it, but it does lead me into the second part of our discussion -- whether having unique content and game features is important at all for new games, both MMO and MUD/PBBG (I'll give you a hint -- it is!) and how.
When I begin a new game project (and we're talking the design stages, not coding and building), I of course have at least a vague idea of the game I eventually want to play, like whether it will be an RTS vs an RPG, the medium (telnet, browser, client), etc. I may even have some initial idea of more specific details, like character classes, unit types, how PvP will work, etc.
It's the nitty-gritty details that then bog me down. Class and skill balancing, specific PvP rules, NPC interaction (skills, communication, grouping, aggro, repopulation after death), character growth (experience and levelling, skill progression) and the myriad myriad other little things that are so vastly important to what makes a game the game that it is.
Having identified this specific area as a challenge, then, we can begin to discuss and compare MUDs/PBBGs (and really all independent games, online or off) vs MMOs (and virtually all other commercial games, online or off).
I believe that Mr. Bartle's comment (again, the "I've played Warhammer..." bit) was primarily in reference to the game's design and why the developers chose the game's features the way they did, which I won't explore at any length. What the point that was made illustrates is the trend in many MMOs and commercial games of asking, "What makes World of Warcraft successful? Ok, great, let's do that."
Of course certain game features will be changed or tweaked, and certain others will actually be moderately unique, at least in their specific implementations. But, in general, it is easy to look at the backs of two MMO boxes and read almost word-for-word statements of the games' features. Now, you will NEVER read anything like, "It plays just like WoW but better!" or any such thing, but gamers aren't stupid.
This raises two more issues. First, why do developers make these kinds of decisions, and second, why do gamers, many/most of whom have played multiple MMOs and are seeing the same features over and over, continue to play the new ones?
As for why the developers make the decisions the way they do, I believe it to be more an issue of production rather than lazy design. The producers have very specific and generally limited budgets to work with, and these budgets can be extraordinarily large (many many millions of dollars, or gazillions in Euros, I think).
When a company and associated investors have put that much capital into a project,
going crazy with new ideas and features is a bad bet (from the fiscal analyst's point of view). Simply put, they can't afford the risk of trying something entirely different and not getting paid.
And why do players keep playing the same game system with a different coat of paint over and over? Well, I can't speak for all, but in my case (for any kind of game), it's a matter of comfort. I know, for instance, when playing a given FPS what the basic controls and ideas are going to be whether it's on my PC or on my super effing sweet new Playstation 3 (high def FTW). Likewise in online games, something entirely new or different presents learning curve challenges that I may not be willing to pay for.
In the MUD/PBBG realm, things are a bit different. Budgets for production are generally nil, there aren't investors breathing down the developers' necks, and players are often much more responsive and willing to try new ideas because, generally, they aren't investing anything of themselves more than time. Then if the game works, we may see the birth of a new genre or ideal, and if not, there's not really a loss on anyone's part to speak of. This way, we can feel free to explore design concepts like permadeath (which may still piss people off, but at least they didn't pay for it in most cases) without repercussive measures like lawsuits when a
player doesn't get what he wants.
This is why I've almost exclusively stuck with the independent folks and games. I just have more fun. I don't enjoy seeing the same things over and over, even if it's
prettier or tweaked, and I certainly don't intend to pay to do so. I also enjoy seeing what people are doing with new games and ideas, probably because I am a novice developer myself and try to study as many ideas and methods of implementation as I can.
However, I believe that many independent games tend to suffer from "unique feature overkill," or trying to do too many things too differently. When I see an article at The MUD Connector advertising a new MUD with "96 classes, 5019 skills, 26 races, and over 1000000000 rooms to explore!" I pretty immediately write the game off as one I'll most likely never play.
First of all, I doubt anyone on earth, particularly a group of script kiddies that has no money and, you know, school to go to, has the ability to create a game of that kind of scale with any quality of production (see first post for my thoughts on production value).
In the more likely situtation, though, we're talking about a game developer with ginormous dreams and a stout idea for exactly the kind of game she wants to play. In this case, said designer may include a gaggle of ideas and new implementations not seen in the mainstream kinds of games (including MUDs and other independents). I have suffered from this kind of idealistic approach and, by no conscious intention, ended up writing a generic D&D like game engine (mostly scrapped now).
This is not to say that NOONE can be successful in introducing new or unheard of game design elements, even lots. I do believe though that the more a new player has never seen, the less likely it is that he'll ever see it in your game. It's a hard sell to change everything up.
So is it really that important to the success of a new game that the design offer something new and unique? It is, most definitely, but HOW it's important is where I find the distinction comes into play.
For large-scale, multi-million dollar products (and they are products, to be sure), it's probably more important for the fiscal success of the game (not necessarily the artistic merit) to stick to the norm and tweak a few things. It's the safer bet and the millions of gamers you're targetting know, basically, what to expect. To some extent, even, this can free the development team up to do more with the story elements (many stories suffer from the same kind of copy-cat syndrome, but not all).
For independent game developers, I personally find it much more important to do something unique to your game to achieve any kind of success. I'm not talking radical reimagining of the MUD or browser game platform at large, but something that makes it stand out is of vital importance.
This is because there are many many times more MUDs/PBBGs/independents to compete with than there are "WoW-alikes" for new MMOs to deal with.
I talk too much. I just like exploring these topics, and I write like I think. So alot. In any case, it's been fun getting these two articles put together, especially because, collectively, they killed a few hours at work.
I love hearing back from you guys, so tell me what you think -- how important is design in a game, MMO or not, to you?
For now I'm gonna finish my fries and try to do some studying. Talk to you again soon!
- John
Posted in: Community Weigh-in
