Rethinking the MMO
by Elizabeth Harper 
Mar 26th 2007 at 7:11PM
I'm sure you all must realize that World of Warcraft is an immensely successful MMO (massively multiplayer online game, if you aren't up on your acronyms!) -- with over 8 million subscribers, it's a standard that many other game-makers strive to emulate, hoping to gain some of the same success. But in a genre full of Warcraft-alikes, where will the MMO go from here? Neil Sorens over at Gamasutra takes a look at the problems and possible solutions for the future of MMO games -- and don't give me that TLDR response, it's a long, but interesting read! And I, at least, will be very interested to see if any of the next generation of MMOs take his suggestions to heart.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
g8rCody Mar 26th 2007 8:39PM
I think it's funny that you spelled out what the MMO acronym means (which everyone reading this should know), but didn't explain what TLDR is, which I have no idea about.
Jeff Mar 26th 2007 9:00PM
If my memory serves me correctly it means "Too Long Didn't Read"
brian Mar 28th 2007 4:25PM
while i agree with many of these points, i feel like he doesn't know what he is taking about when it comes to raids, i mean all mobs at that level are not as hard as he makes it out to be, its just that some mobs require alot of interaction with players to defeat it, and in return they do recieve a significant reward, items that no one else in the game will have unless they too can win it.
Skunky Mar 26th 2007 9:42PM
TLDR
I skimmed it, though. Some interesting points and some new insights in terms of bringing the fun factor of action/adventure games into MMORPG's, but the rest I have read before elsewhere.
I think the author is flat wrong that the "MM" ("massively multiplayer") element does not factor into the reasons why people play MMORPGs. Truth be told, if WoW or any other MMORPG was exactly the same but you only played with 5/10/25 people on a server (depending on your PvE preference), there would be no point to playing. Why? There wouldn't be many people below you. There'd be nobody to show off your "phat lewt" to. Playing with friends is, of course, one thing, but, if playing with friends was one's only reason for playing a MMORPG, why play a MMORPG? Why not a strategy game or a FPS or NWN/NWN2 (similar genre) for crying out loud?
MMORPGs are just as much about keeping up with the Joneses as real life is. MMORPGs are just more fun for doing so. :)
doobtray Mar 26th 2007 10:42PM
The next huge MMO bigger than WOW in my opinion will be a sports game. Imagine making your own character in say a basketball game and winning championships. The Loot would be Bling Bling. Drive your new Porshe to the studio to make a rap song. Party too hard and your player gets arrested. The ideas can be endless and if a game company ever figures this out, look out gang.
Shinypants Mar 26th 2007 10:49PM
Skunky, the author does state that the multiplayer environment is important, just that it's not the most important thing, and that it doesn't have to be "massively" multiplayer.
Frank Mar 28th 2007 12:36AM
In my opinion, Apple TV should support for more video formats (for which we do not need any helps from video converter) and include personal video recording functions also.
http://www.apple-tv-converter.com
MattRossi Mar 26th 2007 11:55PM
The real interesting part of the article was his point about players affecting the world in meaningful ways. I've killed Onyxia hundreds of times and yet, there she is in SW! I don't know how an MMO could get around that issue, because it's a lot of work to design these quests and I can't imagine throwing in one-shot quests but perhaps a dynamic system that renames a mob and seeds it in a different location each time, so that player A kills "Mordrin the Undying" in Southshore while player B kills "The Burning Eye" in Dalaran: the mobs would be statistically identical but no two players would ever fight the same one, or at least there'd be more variety (since there's probably a limit to how many different names you could give them).
Similarly, what if the heads of the Scarlet Monastery changed from time to time? After all, we DID kill them, shouldn't they appoint new ones?
Brian McBride Mar 27th 2007 12:21AM
It is my belief that the "best" MMO of the future will be one that does not design for leveling, but rather everything is designed around the "end game".
As a long time player of various MMOs, the game is always so different when you hit the level cap, it makes me wonder why we have levels at all. Just start everyone at the cap. Ultima Online was like that, you skilled up what you wanted, but getting to Grand Master in any skill didn't take that long. Something like that with the wisdom of MMO history added to it.
Also, I whole heartedly believe that some system of "monster play" should be designed. WoW would be a blast if you didn't know if that monster your about to attack is controlled by a player or by the AI. It really isn't that hard to design a system around this, and it would be pretty fun. As a monster, you plan to die a lot, but your back in the action (quake style) fast. As a player, you last a lot longer but your going to start having to think on your feet.
I dunno. There are so many ways a game the size of WoW would be so much better if all the content from level 1-69 was built just for level 70 and we advanced our characters in new innovative ways. The idea of do a task, get XP, get level, repeat is a throwback to pen and paper games where it sort of works and the early C64 games. The first game to leave that aside and build in new ways for advancement will end up being a big hit.
Camaris Mar 28th 2007 6:41AM
I very much disagree with his statement that the "massively multiplayer" is not important. It is perhaps the *most* important. It's the only reason bored level 60s (and 70s) can still manage to play the game day in, day out. Often, communities are formed that are much larger than your guild (realm forums, realm IRC channels, the old PUG raids). If this was a simple multiplayer game it would't work (first of all.. restricting it to 8 people makes it impossible to play.. you need a large pool of people).
steveymi Mar 27th 2007 12:00PM
/snore
Sal Mar 27th 2007 8:04AM
Eve Online has no endgame, progression is determined by time not xp, and players can fundamentally alter the universe by taking control of certain regions and implementing a crude system of governance. It has a lot of twitch action and you often don't know who is going to win at the end. Main issues include the lack of interesting solo content, having a great storyline which is ignored in the gameplay, and the odd abstract of having no real character, just a ship. It only has 200K subscribers and has been around for four years.
If his thesis was correct more people would play EVE, but they don't.
WoW's journey is interesting if you care to read the text along the way. The fact that he assumes we don't is a shortcoming to the piece. I echo previous statements in that I truly believe the multiplayer aspect makes the genre. If persistent character progression were the most important demand of gamers Age of Empires III would have done better.
It's a good critique of the genre, particularly the scolding of grinding (especially with randomized drops) and obscene amounts of trash in dungeons, two stupidities of WoW.
Shinypants Mar 27th 2007 10:13PM
I think more people don't play EVE because the learning curve is steep, the interface is intimidating, newbies are hopelessly outclassed, and space settings are not mass-market. Also, the author says several times in the article that rewarding the player simply for playing a long time is bad, so I don't know why you cite the time thing.
The text in WoW is OK, but the fact that it's completely meaningless in the overall scheme of things (since doing quests doesn't affect the game world, as the author points out) reduces its entertainment value. "Blah blah blah those meanies killed my wife and I am so blinded with rage that I am hiring someone to get revenge for me!" yeah, I care so much now, just give me my coin and exp.
The AoE3 thing is another red herring. The author never says that persistent progression is every game's most important feature, just that it's the main reason people play MMOs. In fact, in the very last sentence he says just the opposite.
There are a lot of games that don't have the problems listed in the article, like Planetside, but they failed because they were poorly designed or were targeted to a niche audience, like EVE. The average person doesn't want to sit around doing nothing while his ship cruises around on autopilot, which is what you do for a majority of the time in EVE.
Zuuler Mar 27th 2007 9:14AM
I had always thought about the idea of player controlled mobs as well, but in a different way.
The "player" would be a bliz employee hired to take control of a raid lvl boss, and spawn in random points around the world at different times of the day and start wreaking havoc, much like Kruul did just before the expansion.
This could provide some dynamic content as the player could spawn as a different mob every time. In the morning he could be Onyxia ravaging Orgrimmar. In the afternoon he could take Ragnaros out of his hole in the ground and attack Stormwind. And in the evening, he could use Arthas to reclaim Undercity in the name of the scourge.
Skibba Mar 27th 2007 12:55PM
This guy has a few valid points, but at the same time the article is full of contradictions.
One of my favorites is when he says..
"Grinding lessens the excitement and tension of battles. As players are able to predict outcomes with a high degree of accuracy, games are balanced with the assumption that players will win a very high percentage of their battles."
...but then later in the article he says
"a player can typically dispatch enemies at the start of the game with ease. However, as the game progresses, the relative strength of an appropriate enemy increases, making analogous battles lengthier and more difficult, despite the fact that the character is now many times more powerful than before."
/Sigh there is no pleasing this guy