Massively Multiplayer may just be a tag or a marketing slang term now to some, but to others like myself it has real palpable meaning. When I think of a game as Massively Multiplayer I have immediate expectations of certain aspects of the game. In my idea of what constitutes a MMO, which I expect differs greatly from yours, the following things are necessary.
- Large-scale social interaction
- Collaboration/Cooperation with other players to accomplish goals/objectives
- A persistent world
- The game world continues without interaction
I do not have a magical number of players that I feel are required to make something ‘massive’ because I consider these types of games to be qualitative and not necessarily quantitative. There does, however, need to be enough that we can consider it “large-scale”. There must exist between this large number of players the means to and the necessity for social interaction.  Cooperation with other players is an important part of this interaction. Where social interaction can end in a chat window, cooperation picks up and ensures that players are actually doing things together and relying on the participation of the other player in order for actions to happen. In essence, this means that the game should not be single-player.
A persistent world is one that exists regardless of whether or not the player is there. For example, if no one were in Orgrimmar (Orc capital in WoW) today it would still exist waiting for players to enter. This differs from the idea of creating instances for players when the world is needed. A world appearing to meet the needs of the player but being turned off or not being there when the player is away is not a persistent world. An example of this would be the battlegrounds in World of Warcraft or the missions in Global Agenda. The world there is not persistent. I’ve also added the point that the game world must continue without interaction. This is slightly redundant if you’re able to include that within your understanding of persistent, but I wanted to include it in there to further address the issue of creating a world at the demand of the player instead of the player being created to participate in the world.
Now let me combine my ideas about RPG’s with the ones about MMO’s to create what I feel makes a MMORPG:
- Story plays a central role, and the players are involved as characters participating in the world while this story unfolds.
- Large-scale social interaction and collaboration bridge involvement with a two-way interaction between the game and/or other players.
- A persistent world that continues regardless of the interaction from players.
- Combat is more considered than a pure action game and incorporates tactical concepts.
- The player’s character grows over the course of the game developing skills, abilities, etc.
There aren’t many MMORPG’s being made anymore in my opinion. I think that most fall into some sort of “MMOG” subgenre and in many cases they’re starting to create their own. It would be nice to see a MMORPG again but I’m beginning to think that the games have “evolved” or “lost their way” because players do not enjoy this style of game — or do they? I think it’s harder for a team to create a MMORPG because of the way in which the world of the game and the social interactions and story must be a central focus rather than the individual being the focus.
If your ideas differ from mine I would be interested in reading them.  Please feel free to include yours, especially if you’re going to critique mine, so that we can have some form of discussion.
Being overly broad again I would remove the need for a story or persistence.
In the majority of MMORPGs story has no tangible effect on the characters nor the characters the story. It’s flavor for the players interaction.
As for persistence, if the world is static having a world being on without an observer is pointless.
I absolutely hate it when developers try to push the same “story” model from single player RPGs to the MMORPG.
I’m sorry, but wasn’t that the point of the MMORPG in the first place? To participate in a world with real people, mutually creating a story of your -own- creation?
The thing I disagree about in a major way is story. I want minimal “storyline” Don’t get me wrong, I want things to be happening, but whatever is happening should be happening for EVERYONE. If a guy at level 1 is watching as the princess gets captured at the exact same moment that the level 20 guys is saving the princess, I have a problem. I know that any given player perceives it as a “story” because they saw it unfold from level 1 -> 20, but the reality is that the world from an objective standpoint is making no progress, nothing is changing, at level 1 the princess is ALWAYS being captures, at level 20 she is ALWAYS being saved. We need to move past this.
Dynamic/Organic “living” worlds, or if that is impossible for the moment, then worlds with minimal NPC interaction in which they force a certain story ahead regardless of players input/action. (EVE comes to mind, no one cares about the NPC story lines in EVE, but the stories of wars and spies and economic subterfuge are infamous! And are literally a history of player actions in the game. In this was the stories could almost be considered “non fiction”
We already discussed our views on RPGs so I’ll save that. However I pretty much agree with your take on MMOs and the fact that these MMOs coming out are really more of a MMOG than a MMORPG.
I really think persistent world is going to be the coming defining feature of MMOs of the future rather than anything else.
“A persistent world”
Unfortunately most mmo’s these days do not feature a persistent world, the only thing persistent is the characters. In order for the world to be persistent not only must it be able to be effected but also must not reset the changes every X number of days without a valid in-world excuse.
Actually I’d argue no one really cares about the spying and politics in EVE. It’s surprisingly dull, and repeats worse than the story you dislike. Does it even matter to empire dwellers some big 0.0 blob lost geminate?
Keen, I don’t know if you can really define such a general concept. There will always be exceptions and problems. How often even in a large MMO do you have true “large scale social interaction?” How is growing in power really different from an offline action game’s powering the character up through giving new abilities?
It’s something that is so general it’s hard to define.
Can you explain what yesterday’s games did to make them MMORPG’s compared to today’s?
I remember the constantly evolving story arcs in Asheron’s Call. I would consider that a good starting point for stories in an MMORPG. With each monthly patch, the story would progress further and it would have a visible effect on the world. As an example, there was an arc where at first there was strange behavior with the Virindi (think dementors). As players progressed in the temporary dungeon which was only available that month we found out that the Virindi had experimented on a human mage by the name or Martine and now he was out for his own. After another 2 patches of developing the Martine story arc and playing against his minions (more fun than it sounds), we found out that he had been working for an even more powerful mage by the name of Gaerlan. Martine was actually being threatened by Gaerlan and eventually went rogue joined the players. Gaerlan was a master of the elements and after being uncovered began his crusade to destroy the kingdom. Next month, hordes of elementals appeared around every city/town/village. This was relevant to all players as the elementals were all level appropriate to the area. They would often make a run into the center of the town as well. In one town four non-instanced dungeon portals appeared, each one in a 20 level bracket. Progression in the higher dungeons required completion of the respective earlier dungeon – all players were involved in this as the dungeons weren’t easy at all. Eventually all this lead to Gaerlan dieng.
Now I’m fuzzy on the details, and if anyone who played AC during that time comes in and corrects me then I won’t be surprised. That world-affecting story telling really affected the everyday activities of the players and I definitely think we should see more of it in today’s games.
It’s so painfully easy to define RPGs and thus MMORPGs…
RPG = A game where a players take on roles to make meaningful choices in order to resolve conflicts. (obviously GM needs a different definition)
This leads to
MMORPG = A computer game where….
It doesn’t HAVE to be persistent or have a story but having any, or preferably both, is desirable. It definitely doesn’t have to include combat at all, neither any character advancement.
All MMORPGs require you to spend your time fighting or preparing to fight. RPG means roll playing…it does NOT mean adding skills or leveling. Pre-CU Star Wars Galaxies had character classes that didn’t require you to fight. The game gave the player alot of gameplay options and a greater potential for actual roll playing. I still think SWG was the best MMORPG I have played over the past decade.
You can’t force a central storyline on every player in an MMO. You can have storylines, but not central ones that affect the game world. . .which is what a central storyline essentially should do. In order to get a ‘central’ storyline an MMO needs to creat interactions between player characters and then apply the outcomes of those interactions to the game world. You start by simply recording the outcomes. Take the Eve example above, the PvP fights were epic, take those epic fights and record them as history inside the game world. “After the battle a tablet was erected in the town square’. Is that enough? No, but it’s a good start. You have in game interactions between players affecting the game world, that should be the ultimate goal, not regurgitated single player storylines.
I don’t want 2000 people on my server and 2000 princess rescuing heroes, I just want the OPPORTUNITY to be the hero. . .and then another opportunity after that cuz I’m noob =p
so the question that’s left in my mind after reading this is, what games fall into the MMORPG category in your mind? I can think of several that -I- think meet your requirements, but I also think they are subjective. Star Wars Galaxies, as was pointed out already, being one. Planetside another because it’s an always live always evolving world in which players effect the story. though whether there is a story in PS is debatable so I could see why you’d discount it. While I’ve not played it, from what I understand of Darkfall I’d put it in the category, sounds like it meets all the requirements and stuff like there being named mobs that don’t respawn makes it feel more so (i could be wrong, as i say i’ve not played it). I never got overly into EVE, but again seems like it would fit the bill. The upcoming Earthrise sounds like it may. I think story is why I would keep Fallen Earth off the list, players have no effect on the story beyond conflict towns. I’ve certainly not played everything, but that’s really all I can come up with. So what qualifies in you mind Keen?
I think only EQ fits the description perfectly, and some others like WoW get “enough points” to qualify as a MMORPG.
But your right, “MMO” is more used as a marketing selling trick than as an actual description of the game.
Kenny, its not so easy. In a squad based shooter players take on roles to resolve conflicts by meaningful choices. The roles may be sniper, medic, etc. The conflict is warfare between factions or fulfilling a storyline, and the choices you make are as meaningful as others in the context of the game.
The terms are too general, and its probably best to call all games MMOs. RPGs in videogames are more a specific style of combat driven by statistics than about meaningful choices or interaction.
people seem to get caught up in the definition of each individual word in the phrase, ascribing a very literal (and consequently exceedingly general) meaning to the term. I guess that’s fine, although it would seem to fall short of what keen appears to be getting at: what “mmorpg” represents to you as a concept and, possibly, an ideal.
or maybe that’s just my perception, since I tend to agree with him and fervently hope for a return to those ideals as well.
One important distinction for me: the world itself is the “main character” in a true mmorpg. The player character’s impact on it is entirely up to them. It is, unfortunately, an ideal that we appear to be moving away from.
MMOs are a style of game, like FPS or RTS. They are a way of presenting the game.
This tired ole’ argument again Keen? You do realize this should matter to you very little since your ability to stay in 1 MMO for any reasonable length of time is dismal at best. So why worry about it at all, especially if your bound to quit and try something else within a few weeks/months?
To me, and many others MMO’s mean 3 things:
1. Persistant World
2. Story Driven elements
3. Skill/Stat advancement
Nothing more and nothing less. Having required (read: Forced Grouping) makes not a MMO. Those 3 things have been what MMO’s have been based around since Meridian 59, UO, EQ and AC (the beginners)
Your Ever reaching desire of large scale Social interaction is the core driving wedge between the great many types of gamers, forced grouping,hardcore vs socailly moderate noobs. If I want to interact I will, if I dont I wont, that makes the game an MMO cause I am free to choose, not have predifned single player strictness forced down my throat.
MMOG – any game of any type or genre designed to be played only online by a “massive” number of players. We don’t have a good working definition of “massive” but I would say it should be in three figures simultaneously logged on per server, as a bare minimum.
MMORPG – all the above with the addition of a persistent world, persistent characters and some form of gameplay that allows the characters to be “roleplayed”, in a manner either defined by the rules of the game, or by the players, or a combination of both.
I prefer the latter, and require a persistent world, characters and enough substance provided by the designers to build a characterisation on. And at least a few people to talk to.
Massive I’m not so bothered about, though. I actually like playing on servers with populations under 100 people at primetime, as indeed I do play or have played on in a number of games. Fifty or a hundred other people online is MORE than enough to creat the feel of a living world, given all backround atmosphere provided by NPCs.
@filch: Precisely! That is why I worded it such that the player participates in the world as the story unfolds, not that the player is the central focus.
@Buddydude: A lot of the focus is being shifted onto the player instead of on the world. As filch said so well, the world hsould be the main character. Today the games are being made where every individual is the hero and the central focus. I’d say that this is the major change.
@Pezzy: Good point of clarification there. Combat is not always necessary in a MMORPG. As you pointed out, SWG allowed you to play a Musician or a Dancer and never once participate in combat. Combat in a MMORPG though should be more considered than in a game like Diablo.
@Brad$: EQ, SWG, AC, UO, DAoC, are just a couple on the tip of my tongue.
Dblade, I wouldn’t call “should I shoot, go back or die” a meaningful choice. Can you walk up to that dude and try to talk it out? Can you just drop your stuff and exit left to start an inn? Can you…
I played Acheron’s Call once. That’s over a year of my life I want back.
MMORPG’s suck. Or maybe it’s cuz I like gaming but have other things I want to do as well?
I know, I know, sorta related but off topic. I’m sorry.
Thinking back to persistance for a bit, I’d say if persistance is a requirement for mmo’s then most mmo’s these days only barely qualify. If the only thing persistant in an mmo is the player characters then it is just barely managing to call itself a persistant world because the “World” in fact isn’t.
@Alice: Yep, I would tend to agree. When I think of persistent worlds I think of SWG and how players created houses and resource extractors and actually took up permanent space that was theirs. I also think about UO in much the same way and even DAOC with the keeps being physical and persistent places within the world. Today, the most persistence we see in the most persistent of newer MMOG’s is that the world is “there”.
@Mike, its actually Asherons Call.
And it being my very first MMO (unlike the more normal EQ) then it will always be my favorite, hell I still have an active subscription and log in about once a month to check things out (after 10 years of playing). The game has so much in what I consider the optimal MMO. Character Advancement via nigh unreachable end level, highest ive made is 148. Plus the never ending quest for that ultimate Sword of uberdoom. The Diablo style loot system, monthly advancement of the storyline and the open-ended sandbox style of play makes it second to none.
For me, RPG has always had less to do with the story and more to do with gaining some form of points (through combat or other activities) that translate into levels, causing the character to become more powerful at the activity that gave them the points. It’s why I’m often annoyed when people refer to Zelda as an RPG (because only one of the ones I played as a kid actually featured experience and levels, and nobody ever talked about that one).
And how persistent is Orgrimmar, really? Does the city actually exist when nobody’s in it? We certainly don’t make any changes to the place, other than the contents of our bank and the auction house, which aren’t really in that place at all. Occasionally an event will come around that will change certain NPCs or something, but those tend to be pretty rare.
The only differences I see between this and an instance is the number of copies and how many people can get in. WoW’s overworld areas and cities just happen to be limited to one instance containing everyone at the same time.
AC well best MMO ever. its nice to see it being talked about here. last time i went back it just felt like a dead world.
i have played many, mmorpgs since AC. and i feel only one to come close is fallen earth. it feels like a wide open world to me. the way the stats work. you can make your char what you want. not felt that in any game since AC.
WoW killed mmorpgs, i still play and have fun in wow. killed the games i love tho.
as much fun as wow is for me, i feel fallen earth is how the game should be.
this is whole thing is pretty pointless. everyone wants something diff from a mmorpg.
we all get the samething another wow copy. its about money in the end. wow made it everyone wants to do the same. the only game i played in the last 5 years that i did not feel was taking something from wow, or all the games that come before is FE.
@Kiryn
I think Zelda absolutely would fit into the mold of an RPG. you do gain bigger heart buffers, cooler weapons etc. Sure it’s simplistic, but there is character growth.
As you said: how persistent is Orgrimmar? There are over 200 realms for wow right now. That means there are over 200 orgrimmars out there. Is there a difference between an architecture where you choose a shard or choose a server to play on? in reality not much. With the shard system you get free realm transfers i guess.
in general
EQ and DAOC had non-instanced dungeons, it was cool i guess, but it felt like a friggin shopping mall or gaming arcade where people would put their quarter on the console and wait for their turn to play. It took away a lot of the epic dungeon feel from it.
Adding instanced dungeons in WoW, in my opinion, was a huge plus. The dungeons felt like it was you and your party alone against the dungeon denziens. I would also argue that the dungeon could be made more fun, interesting, and balanced if the developers know how many would be able to enter it together.
“Combat is more considered than a pure action game and incorporates tactical concepts”
Keen, but you have to delve into this one. What MMO has incorporated tactical concepts? Which MMO HASN’T? What ARE tactical concepts (in your mind)? Zerging is a tactic. Rushing Vandar is a tactic. Spawncamping a graveyard is a tactic. Ganking lowbies is a tactic. Playing streetfighter involves a lot of tactical decisions. Playing Call of Duty involves a lot of tactical concepts.
The battlegrounds in WoW and Global Agenda might not be unique and persistent in your opinion, but what IS persistent in an mmo? All the mobs are gonna respawn at the same exact spot in most of them, resources are gonna respawn, etc. Some games had users being able to add or modify the environment, some doesn’t. Is one more MMORPG than the other?
Single Player/Multi player
Do you think that if a game ALLOWS you to be able to “solo” its contents it doesn’t qualify as an MMO? Does it have to be difficult enough that you are forced to find groups to advance through it? STO felt like a massive singleplayer game to me, more than any other game has made me feel, but i would still label it as an MMO.
Anyway, I’m with Kenny on this one. I’m going to play some of that MMOFPSRPG Call of Duty.
“The battlegrounds in WoW and Global Agenda might not be unique and persistent in your opinion, but what IS persistent in an mmo? All the mobs are gonna respawn at the same exact spot in most of them, resources are gonna respawn, etc. Some games had users being able to add or modify the environment, some doesn’t. Is one more MMORPG than the other?”
Persistance means that the actions of the player have a lasting effect. early on UO would have the system respond to the player, if you killed too many sheep the wolves became more aggresive, if a sheep killed you in combat the sheep got stronger. If too many cows were killed the dragon would change his targeting to include cities.
The players shape the story, if Thrall in Orgrimmar is killed then he should be dead, he can come back if he is ressurected, but now the game needs to recognize that he indeed did die at some point and not just forget. Perhapes make him add more guards to his chambers, or at least the game npcs cry about how they are so happy he is back.
Keen, thank you for starting a quite lively (and often heated) discussion at my office! Here’s what we came up with:
Necessary for an MMORPG:
-Massive Player Count
-Massive Geography
-Seamless Geography (Mostly seamless is okay; SWG had seams when you travelled between worlds.)
-World Persistence (‘World’ not just meaning dirt, but anything that your character interacts with that remains between logins.)
-Character Growth & Persistance (Growth is necessary for RPG purposes.)
-Lore/Setting (Lore is necessary for RPG purposes, although we decided Quests are not.)
-Guilds/Grouping Mechanism
-Community Goals (These are usually made up from things on the “Adds to the Fun” list below.)
The following were things that add lots of fun to the game, but aren’t (in our opinion) necessary to qualify as an MMORPG.
Adds to the Fun:
-PvE
-PvP
-Quests
-NPCs
-Gathering/Crafting
-Constructing
-Politics/Laws (Hooray ATitD!)
-Avatar Customization
-Items/Inventory
-Auctions/Player-run Stores
-Personal/Public Transportation
-Instant Travel
-Powers/Spells/Etc.
-Housing
A lot of those things you might look and and say, “I’d never play an MMORPG without that!” Me too. But leaving any of those features out doesn’t mean it’s not an MMORPG. (However, if you tried to leave out ALL of that list, there might not be much ‘G’ in your MMORPG.)
So there you have it! Thanks for the good discussion topic!
Oh, and I probably left lots of stuff off of the second list. I just tried to remember everything that people would assume should be in the game, but we don’t feel need to be.
Very nice list Matt. It definitely looks like it took an office/team to come up with that list. One quick question/comment:
NPC’s – Seem necessary to me. I think that without them you would find yourself very much without direction and instruction, and without anything to deliver the lore/setting/story. Can you explain what you or the team meant by not having NPC’s, and what kind of situation that would create?
@Office Jerk: Zelda games are “adventure” games. I just have to make sure I address that first and foremost because Graev is standing on the other end jumping up and down foaming at the mouth over it. Definitely not RPG’s.
Combat – Most MMO’s have combat that is considered with tactical concepts. That’s why most people complain that combat in MMO’s is slow. This line is to identify that combat from a game like Diablo would not really work.
Persistence – Think about it this way. The battlegrounds are not there if the players do not occupy them. The world in EQ, however, is there regardless. That’s one example of a persistent world. Taking it to the extreme, we can think about whether or not actions leave lasting impacts on the world, such as when a player in SWG builds a house or if a mob is killed and it does not respawn. Bottom line, zero persistence is present in games that employ temporary instancing.
Solo Play – Being able to solo is fine. There needs to be social interaction and cooperation available and centralized within the game, though. “Forced grouping” is the wrong approach. “Encouraged” and “high incentive” grouping are much better.
No NPCs would definitely make it a sandbox game. In fact, with no NPCs, you’d have no vendors, and really no way to introduce a currency into the system, resulting in some sort of goods-trading system (reminds me of when gold became so common in Diablo 2 that Stone of Jordan’s became the new currency). But I think ‘EVE Online’ could be made NPC-less with little effort. And I believe ‘A Tale in the Desert’ already is.
I think this has devolved into a discussion of a platonic ideal(or personal ideal) rather than the reality of what an MMORPG is…
Classic RPGs such as EQ, UO, AC,WoW, and AO did they incorporate all of these concepts?
You have more effect on the game “World” in a game such as Global Agenda or WAR then you do in others.
Instanced or not Guild Wars is an MMO to me.
—
This idea that the world is the main character astounds me. The world is only a canvas on which to play. Take D&D for example…the world is the campaign or the dungeon, surely it’s not more important than the characters/players experiencing it.
In D&D the world/campaign is just as important or more important as the characters in it. Anyone who plays D&D seriously will attest to that.
As for this being “personal ideal”… yep. You’re come to the right place. I said right in the post this is what I think, and what I want to hear is what you think.
Totally agree with Keen on what I hope for in a MMORPG. I’ll never forget building my house in UO right next to a dungeon and getting rich shearing sheep and selling the crafted bandages off my doorstep vendor literally a few feet from the entrance to the dungeon. It had nothing to do with combat on my part.
I had a permanent place in the world. A way that I affected it.
Then comes a game like Warhammer, where nothing I do affects the world. Take some keeps? So? It all resets back to the neutral state on it’s own. The other realm didn’t have to do a single thing.
EvE Online may be the only mainstream MMO these days that offers a significant amount of the stuff on these lists. i wonder if “sandbox style” is required to really provide the worlds that allow for this. Even EQ didn’t allow for non-combat only characters the way UO did with crafters, SWG with artisans, and EvE with market/industrialists/traders.
All this said… it’s painful to accept that STO is going to miss the mark as well. It’ll be a fun RPG in the vein of other Bioware offerings, but it won’t scratch the MMORPG itch.
But What exactly makes Zelda an adventure game and not an RPG? Kings/Space/Police Quest, Leisure Suit Larry, Zork, etc are
adventure games, I can admit to that. The items you gain in those games are strictly “keys” to solve segments of the game. In zelda you have a distinct progression of the character. you don’t have STR,INT,DEX, etc. but you have hearts. View it as the simplest possible RPG – 1 stat: Stamina. The items (bomb, bow, boomerang, silver arrow, rings, etc, etc, etc) in Zelda also serve as progression as in, say, wow. to make the character more powerful. Zelda falls ab.so.lutely under the RPG umbrella. Just because it only has a single stat doesn’t mean it’s not. (wall of text crits you for 5,000 damage)
Allright, we’re not trying to define MMORPGs here, we’re going back to discuss what should be IN an MMORPG
What about Sandbox vs. Themepark?
I am of the opinion that a pure sandbox game has a hard time of becoming interesting and meta gaming suddenly becomes the main part of the game, which might be restricted to 1% of the population. On the flipside, a theme park game feels very stale and scripted quickly, the spreadsheets and dungeon guides are pulled out.
I think that there needs to be some game-driven elements in the game that pushes the people in the game to do certain things. But also have a strong flavor of open-endedness.
I think darkfall made so many mistakes in this themepark-vs-sandbox compromise. for instance: no safe trading mechanism (themepark) eliminated lots of crafting potential, but adding global banks (themepark) eliminated certain risks and resource planning. just to mention two things.
Wurm Online is an excellent sandbox game. yeah it has themeparkesque features such as npcs etc. but why is it so great? like people mention before: you can actually change the game world you are part of. and in this game on a huge scale.
Griefing is another woe in too open environments. Unless the game is heavily moderated and supervised, people will do dipsh*t stuff like building buildings so that on the world map it looks like a bunch of swastikas, or spell out various sexual innuendos – remember Sims Online? That takes away from the experience imo.
Player housing i think is huge, but most implementations of it that i’ve experienced sucked.
I think developers are trying to please too many with housing. Make it expensive to own guild halls in the one and only instance of Orgrimmar, yeah i might not ever be part of of the few guilds that can own that property, but DAMN would it add to the ambience to see big Guild banners fly over their houses.
Gathering and Crafting needs to be a huge and Central part of the game. In fact, i would like to see games with 99% crafted items. I would like to see items that degrade or gets destroyed so that crafters are always needed at all levels of skill. But i also understand that ‘finding treasure’ is fun, and i think it has its place in the game, but again, i don’t think (save for maybe a few legendary type items) they should be permanent. they should degrade, or be able to be stolen/looted from you.
I also would like to see a pvp centric mmo without exploiters, macroers, and cheaters. but let’s not get carried away
Keen you nailed what makes today’s MMORPG blend…unfortunately.In todays market EvE is the only game with a Persistent world(one game,One world).Just watching the fan made videos are proofs that EvE’s world is unique as they are all story driven within the lore.
When BoB disbanded it rippled the whole EvE universe because they occupied an important part in this world,I don’t know any other game where the disbanding of guild had an effect on the whole world.
Some incoming games(FFXIV,The Secret World) seem to have embraced some of the things you listed Keen,so gonna keep my fingers crossed and wait for 2011.
@Office Jerk : I think it gets difficult to classify games under a single banner when so many are a blend of genres. Any story-centric RPG is really an adventure game as well. As such, sandbox is probably the purest form of RPG there is.
As far as Zelda goes I think character customization is just as important as character progression in an RPG. The character progression you describe is really no different to gaining new weapons in an FPS and doesn’t really qualify as an RPG.
I know this is off subject but your last post made me want to bring this up office jerk. Something people complain about in sandboxes is the freedom to kill and be killed in the wild. Something that sandboxes are going to have to implement before they can gain more PVE players is a justice system that amounts to more than “go kill them back”. The game needs a function for you to report the crime to Orgrimmar, if the guards feel the crime fell within their jurisdiction or was major enough they would now be aware that “pwnzor23” has committed such and such crime and will attempt to bring him to some sort of justice.
Sorry for the double post, hadn’t refreshed to see two new replies.
@Valdur
I agree EVE definitely occupies this very unique type of game space but I would say that it isn’t the only one in the current generation of mmo’s, Darkfall is in the same place as it in most regards.
Kenny:
I don’t call running a rotation of abilities to kill endlessly respawning monsters to gain a level up all that of a meaningful choice either. You can’t start an inn in any MMO period, if we are talking about a classic RPG inn where you can rest. Can you talk out a conflict versus enemies in most MMO in the mechanics? It’s really not much different if you look at it that way. You’d have to go back to text games to really meet all the criteria.
Even in EVE, who many people trumpet but few play, there is crap for meaningful choice except what price you sell your goods and what player you can choose to blow up or steal from. Replacing NPC enemies with players really doesn’t add as much interaction as you think.
I think part of the problem is that the term “persistent world” has been pretty mangled. The idea of a persistent world was initially that the CHANGES made to the world PERSIST from session to session. Hence, Persistent World. However, the term has basically come to mean “Static World.” Where it is a never changing world. To me, this is the biggest problem. I would say that there were NWN 1 persistent world servers with caps of 48-64 that did a better job of delivering what I would now called a proper “MMO” experience that a lot of current MMOs, and those were created and run by people for free in their spare time.
Wow, reading all 42 posts in one sitting is quite something.
I’ve never actually responded to any of your posts Keen, but I’ve been reading your blog for a long time now and having played MMORPGs for such a long time, I felt this would be the best time to pitch in.
First of all, Eve doesn’t have one persistent world. I’d almost like to refer to it as persistent instances. That whole, “1 server, 1 world” tag is all bull. It may be hosted on one server, it may not, all I know is that the game is actually a series of many interconnected systems (read: instances) that exist whether or not there are players occupying said systems.
I’m gonna be honest and say that I’ve only recently quit World of Warcraft because of personal reasons. On that topic, I just wanted to say that WoW might or might not fall into your definition of a MMORPG Keen, but there are aspects to that game that make it so much more than just a MMORPG. I swear; I’m pretty sure Blizzard has a team of psychiatrists working hand in hand with their designers to develop their content.
As I was reading your description of a MMORPG, I had to ask, “But what makes MMORPGS fun?†Social interactions definitely affect whether or not a game is fun, but more often than not, you end up spending your precious time having to deal with prepubescent (mentally or physically) assholes that learned to write during the ICQ/MSN era. Playing a part in the story may or may not be fun, depending on your interest in said story and if you look at some of the posts here, you’ll find that many people aren’t that interested in storylines. Combat once again, may or may not be fun; does anyone enjoy getting owned over and over again? It doesn’t matter how “pro†you are, it happens to everyone, especially in an MMORPG where the combat is more often team-based rather than just 1-on-1 duels. And finally, I don’t think just existing in a persistent world or advancing your character is enough to make a game fun.
For me, it’s always been about instant gratification and positive reinforcement. Having to invest a little amount of time and receiving an apparently large reward. When I play a game, especially an MMORPG, it’s mainly an escape. I.e. I just got home from a shitty day at work and I want to sit down at my computer and forget about my day-to-day worries. I enjoy a challenge as much as the next person, but everything has its place and time. If I wanted to commit to something long-term and truly meaningful, I’d buy a guitar or explore other hobbies. I also like the PvP aspects, despite what I said earlier. Sometimes I want to push my fist through a wall, but sometimes I pull off some magnificent strategy (read: RNG was on my side) and change the flow of the battle almost entirely on my own giving me a rush of adrenaline.
What makes MMORPGs fun for you Keen?
Lets be honest… RPGs have always had a smaller market than action/adventure games.
Doesn’t it make sense that the MMO developers would shift away from a RPG focus towards a more Action/Adventure style games that tends to flourish easier?
I love RPGs, but not all of my friends do. I think it makes sense that the MMOs are now being designed away from classic RPG. I think that is something people are neglecting to take into account aswell… classic RPG and contemporary RPGs are not the same.
@Tudor: I enjoy being apart of a virtual world that is bigger and more important than my character where I can contribute to something. I love the social interactions with other people who share similar ideals. To give you an example, I was perfectly fine sitting in a Cantina for five hours at a time socializing with people in SWG. Not only did the game encourage that and facilitate that, but it rewarded me for doing so.
I enjoy the growth that I experience in not only my character but in the community. I find, for whatever reason, a lot of joy in being part of a community that creates a lasting impact on a game. In MMORPG’s, especially ones with persistent or near persistent worlds, this is possible. When I think of a MMORPG, I think of “living” the experience rather than “playing” it.
@Epiny: It makes perfect sense from a business point of view. Shifting away from RPG to a more popular model means there are more potential players which means there is more potential money. Me, personally, I liked the RPG style. That doesn’t mean I dislike everything else though. I simply wish for a more balanced pool from which to select games to play. I think it’s possible for a more RPG-oriented MMO to succeed again.
@Keen
I don’t know if I really want a MMORPG anymore. I use to think I did, I know I love the elements of a RPG, but I am not sure if a MMORPG is what is for me anymore or if I just want a MMO.
Keen, you make me excited about what MMORPGs could be.
@ Tudor: Slightly off topic perhaps, but I wanted to clarify a bit.
Quote: “… Eve doesn’t have one persistent world. I’d almost like to refer to it as persistent instances. … the game is actually a series of many interconnected systems (read: instances) that exist whether or not there are players occupying said systems.”
“Instances” are places or locations, typically with multiple, identical duplicates, that do not exist at all, unless players are currently occupying them. I.e. instances are created on the fly as required. Additionally, instances are almost always limited to a small number of players, 1-6, or 10/25 for a “raid” instance. (Thus many feel that any heavily instanced MMOG is not truly a MMOG.)
I haven’t played Eve, but it sounds like the systems do continue to exist, even when unoccupied. (Correct me if I’m wrong…)
The systems sound exactly like the “zones” used in other MMOGs. The locations are separated from each other by a loading screen, but they are still “persistent”, i.e. they still exist sans players and the current state persists. Also they are not limited to a specific number of players; any player can enter a zone at any time.
EQ1 was heavily dependant on zones — everything was a zone there, nothing was an instance. (By the way, just curious, is EQ1 still that way, or have they added instances? Anyone know?)
Most MMOGs to this day still rely on zones; for example, WoW still uses zones, albeit in a broader sense — technically Teldrassil, Kalimdor, Eastern Kingdoms, Deeprun Tram, Outlands and Northrend are all separate zones. (Although, with the exception of Deeprun Tram, people may not view them as such…)
I completely agree with Keen on what is needed to constitute a MMO. The 4 must haves are;
• Large-scale social interaction
• Collaboration/Cooperation with other players to accomplish goals/objectives
• A persistent world
• The game world continues without interaction
Now where we tend to differ is when we try to decide on what constitutes a RPG. I think historically RPGs have always been very story driven games with your characters ability advancement more as a means of pacing the game. However just because something was, doesn’t mean it still is.
Everything changes and grows and I think what a RPG is today is a little different. The major defining characteristic of a RPG now is character advancement through levels and abilities. This is seen in Real Time Strategy games all the way to First Person Shooter games that implement “RPG elements†into their game, that being character development.
We could argue all day that story and tactical combat are elements of a RPG but in the end they are the lesser elements. If a RTS game has a story they don’t claim that it has RPG elements because of it. Every game has some element of story, no matter how small it is. Strategy games have extremely tactical and considered combat, yet they are not considered RPG elements.
In the end only character progression is considered a true RPG element.
I agree with Epiny. To be a RPG, there just needs to be character growth and progression. Anything else is really just icing on the cake.
Dblade: Neither did I call games with those elements RPG. Neither did I call EVE an RPG, imho it is more removed from classic RPG roots than, say, WoW, but it truly shows how powerful content generated by player interaction can be. Also player interaction is something tangiable, measurable, thus it is possible to set up a reward system for it (like you open a pub and get “xp” for guests staying at your place, as a simple example).
Epiny: why does character progression have to be considered an RPG element? It (usually) only allows you to tackle more content, period, which is not necesseraly a good mechanics.
And why-o-why does an MMORPG contain combat? An MMORPG with zero combat is perfectly plausible.
Kenny,
I think we are down to semantics. Just because you don’t consider it a good mechanic doesn’t mean it isn’t a mechanic. I think I laid out WHY character progression is considered a RPG element. Character advancement is what is taken away from a RPG and added to other games when they site “RPG” element.
Character progression isn’t what allows you to tackle more content, it is actually what keeps you from it. With no character progression your character would be just as powerful on the first day you played the game as it would 2 years later. Character progression is a way of moderating the speed at which we consume content. It also allows us to feel like we are creating a character, which alot of people consider to be important to that RPG element.
Further more a MMORPG should contain combat. A MMO doesn’t need too, for instance Second Life. However most games have some sort of competition be it direct or in direct and that can be viewed as combat. For instance the Auction House in WoW is often considered a form of combat as you fight for the best price.
Epiny,
You’re right in saying that stat crunching is taken from CRPGs and when tackled on other games those are said to have RPG-elements. However because Marketing says something it won’t make it so.Advancing numbers is not an integral part of RPGs. I’m not talking about CRPGs but RPGs.
To illustrate my point imagine the following scenario: given a game with 100 players who are equally powerful, equally capable to solve certain things and unable to solve others. Let’s imagine x% (x<100 :]) of them stick to the game for 2 years. Now, let's imagine a newbie joins the game at that point. Can you honestly say that the 2 yrs vets and the newbie are equally "powerful"? I can't.
While content being withhold by progression is true, it is only true because of the linear nature of the games on the market. EVE, mechanics-wise, would work just as fine if you could jump into any ship with no relevant skills but have your efficiency reduced for each skill that's below the requirement (essentially overeqiping). If ships were (neraly) perfectly balanced against each other you wouldn't even need that.
And while playing with the word "combat" is sweet we both know what type of "combat" I was refering to.
Kenny, if you mean classic pen and paper RPG, it’s an impossible definition. The only true MMORPG then would be an IRC chat room where people roleplay. Computer games can’t deal with all the situations that pen and paper games need. I’m not really sure what your definition entails though. I think it might help if you just described your ideal game.
So then Star Craft is a RPG Kenny, because you just described it.
I think you are twisting what RPGs are today into what you want them to be or what they were in the 70s. That isn’t the case, just as video games aren’t the same as what they were in the 70s.
@Kenny, I agree with Epiny. in Starcraft, everyone starts off with the same opportunities and resources but the players get better in terms of skill the longer they play the game. There is no sense of in-game progression as once you’ve finished a battle, whether you win or lose, you will only have the same in-game resources that you had initially. One could also say the same about many other multiplayer games such as counter-strike or even poker. You’re only as good as what you bring to the table. But in those examples, you’re not “Role-Playing”, you’re just exhibiting your knowledge of the subject matter and putting it to the test. Without progression a RPG wouldn’t have direction. Imagine World of Warcraft with no levels, no equipment/weapons and no talents. You’d have no way of distinguishing yourself from other players. There would be no continuity to the game as Blizzard wouldn’t really be able to release more difficult encounters, just ones that would be “different” in some way. Imagine a raid of 40 level 1 gnomes going to kill Hogger. Sure it’s fun, one time, but then what? What has changed? That’s the problem with non-RPGs nowadays, take Left 4 Dead for example. Some people enjoyed it, but the people who’ve played RPGs or MMORPGs in the past quickly got bored of the multiplayer action. Why? Because it’s the same bloody thing over and over again. There’s no sense of continuity and no sense of progression. Despite the fact that you as a player may slowly be getting better at playing the game. Left 4 Dead is not a RPG. Take a look at Modern Warfare 2. It’s a first person shooter, but Infinity Ward knows how most gamers have been warped by playing RPGs and they threw an RPG element into their product, i.e. Player Levels. There’s a sense of in-game progression and that’s why Modern Warfare 2 is still very popular over 2 months after release.
As far as combat goes, I think the term we should be using is “Competition” since semantics doesn’t seem to be your strong suit. Some form of rising above and conquering other PCs or NPCs is necessary to any RPG.
Dblade: why can’t they deal with those situations? They don’t even try. If you played enough p&p you know that those games (well, sessions) also have the invisible barriers set up by the gm. There are things you’re not allowed to do, depending on the gm’s whim. Sure, he’s still going to be much more flexible than a computer game but if the later doesn’t even try…
Epiny & Tudor: Did you read my initial comment? Then read again yours and please tell me what “meaningful choices” do you have in Starcraft or CS. Unfortunately I’m picky so “Kill or be killed” wouldn’t cut it for me in an RPG.
Tudor: I’ve never said that skills, talents, perks and whatnots should be gone from the RPGs, please stop putting stuff in my mouth. Neither did I say that there should be no competition or conflict (see #9), but abstracting it to violent combat is just pure laziness.
Also, for a second try to step out of the conventional C-/MMORPG schemes and try to look at it from the outside. Here’s a thought to chew on: how is WoW at the enggame level, where most players spend the majority of their time, different from a game with no stat advancement? How come that Blizzard officially recommends the non-advancement part of their game (“Life begins after lvl 60”)? Then answer this please: do you really _have to have_ advancement (=grind/questing nowdays) in an RPG to begin with?
Just as a disclaimer, my take is that it’s nice if there is advancement, especially if it’s not just some mindless grind/questing, but it is not an absolutely necessary, mandatory, integral part of any RPG.
@Kenny. At endgame in World of Warcraft, you have advancement(read: progression) through the weapons and armor you acquire that allow you to participate in harder encounters that in turn give you better gear. You no longer have progression in the form of levels, but you still have progression.
Describe a role-playing game that you’ve played without progression.
@Kenny
I think this is going to be one of those things where you sit on the opposite side of the line as some of us. I completely disagree with you. I think that character advancement is the ONLY mandatory part of a RPG.
You are trying to create a blanket RPG definition that encompasses only good RPGs. Guess what; even bad RPGs are still RPGs. Just because a game lacks the depth or choices you or others feel it should have had doesn’t morph it into an Action/Adventure Game.
Thank you Tudor, I was going to say that. Improving your gear is an alternate means of character progression. Look at MW2; it contains RPG elements… those being levels that unlock better gear. Character advancement. Dawn of War 2 has two forms of character advancement, abilities and gear, again advertised as RPG elements.
There comes a certain point when you have to accept that character progression through stats or gear is a mandatory part of a RPG. The reason is because everyone says so. I know that is a horrible thing to say but definitions are often decided on by a mass consensus. I think the fact that the games come labeled this way would be our mass consensus here.
I go all the way back to my original statement. When a developer adds character progression to their game they advertise it as a RPG element. Nothing else from a RPG is ever taken from them, added to another game, and advertised as a RPG element. Therefore character progression must be the only mandatory feature in a RPG.
on the gathering/crafting, i believe a great portion of the DAOC’s appeal prior to Atlantis was that in fact 99% of the equipment was crafted, and hand-crafted to a client’s specific needs. “Builds” meant not only your skill distribution but primarily how you chose to wear your equipment. That made crafters an indispensable part of the community, exactly as it should be, it would also encourage your community sense since you would have to actually TALK to your crafters and not just get everything at the AH>
Sorry for the late reply but long bus rides whack the thoughts out of my head.
Epiny, you’re right. We are sitting on the opposing sides of the fence. Having no advancement is akin to oldschool adventure games, like LucasArts or Sierra games. Are they really that different from, say, KotOR? Or, considering that the challenge level curve is ridiculously flat in, say, Mass Effect, how is it any different from any non-leveling game? Just because BioWare delude you into thinking you get more uber as you progress? Mind you, BioWare stuff is considered the epitome and crown achievement for cRPG…
And sorry, just because they say so it won’t make it: “Eat cow shit, 10 trillion flies cannot be wrong!” :]]
As for equipment grinding… It is not character advancement, at least not in my book. Why? Because WoW is a mmo-hack&slash, not an mmorpg. Sure you can RP in WoW, in fact I’ve seen some of the best RPing in WoW, but this is an exception – it’s like car racing in BF2 (yes, been there done that). Just because you can do it it won’t make the game be that genre.
(Just a random thought: what’s the difference between rampant stat-inflation generating items and static characters facing increasingly tough challenges?)
Again, instead of repeating dogmas try to think outside of the box. Suppose someone comes up with the magic formula that will be the perfect mmoRPG. With all the RPG elements in it. Suppose we could compare that to a pen&paper game. Now, point me to a single pen&paper where item advancement is considered character advancement. Considering even cP/Shadowrun this would be a dubious statement. In fact point me to a p&p game with itemgrind (with the possible exception of dnd)!
And the reson for this? Well, guess,,. 😉
Just some added bonus: “Power 19”, #13. But then again I guess you can call any state change “advancement” if yyou want…
You know what, Kenny? Like it was previously stated, there is no such thing as the perfect mmorpg because everyone wants something else out of the genre. That’s why it’s so difficult to define.
But here’s a random thought for you, even if you think outside of the box, an orange is still just an orange.
You’re arguing Epiny and my case for us. All we’re saying is that a MMORPG must have some sense of progression or advancement. Whether that’s character advancement or item advancement or whatever the hell else, as long as there is a sense of moving forward and continuing some sort of epic journey or adventure, that feeling needs to be present in a RPG or a MMORPG.
Diablo is a “hack and slash” game, but it’s also a RPG. Calling WoW a MMO-“hack&slash” game does not negate the possibility that it’s a MMORPG.
Took the words right out of my head Tudor. Thanks.
Epiny: “But here’s a random thought for you, even if you think outside of the box, an orange is still just an orange.” Now THAT could launch it’s own debate that could rage on for ages.
Anyway, I never argued that there should be no progression at all in (MMO)RPGs, I merely stated that _character advancement_ is not necessarily a feature of RPGs. Static characters are perfectly plausible. Nothing more, nothing less.
Also I believe hack&slash and rpg to be mutually esclusive as definitions but that’s might only be me. After all I guess you can call fps’es “rpg” because you play in the role of the main character…
I don’t know how to say it without sounding like an asshole so I say it out plainly: there are categories we humans need, and these have to be defined. They won’t get defined by some unconscious mass consensus but by some people. I probably couldn’t be further away to be one of those for “RPG”, point is, it’s not decided by the masses. Other things might be called “RPG” because intentional or unintentional mislabeling but in this case those who want to sell, let’s call it “pure RPG, pRPG” will just come up with a different name for it. Does this make the so called “RPG” RPG? Not relly but I guess people are happy if they can be deluded to think so…
BTW I’m not an rpg snob, and in fact last time I played Dio2 was 13 days ago. :]
Kenny,
That was Tudor who said the orange thing, but it doesn’t matter.
I think we can agree that we wont see eye to eye on this. Tudor and I feel there must be some form of character progression for the game to be a RPG. You don’t.
I would like to thank you for keeping the debate civil. It was fun.