[MMORPG] Why Virtual Worlds are designed by newbies

[D'Arcy]

Virtual worlds are under evolutionary pressure to promote design features that, while not exactly bad, are nevertheless poor. Each succeeding generation absorbs these into the virtual world paradigm, and introduces new poor features for the next generation to take on board. The result is that virtual world design follows a downward path of not-quite-good-enough, leading ultimately to an erosion of what virtual worlds are.

Soapbox version
Other Players conference paper (PDF)

Finally a sensible explanation why nonsensical features like instanced dungeons prevail. And I particularly like his take on the itinerant players who are seeking a sense of closure for their quest, which these kinds of games can never provide.

[The Mad Hatter]

Nonsensical features like instanced dungeons prevail because without them mindless camping prevails, which is just as nonsensical and far more tedious. That document ignores all of the practical reasons why those elements are present. Yes, permanent death has potential benefits, but tell that to some guy who lost his main character because his connection crashed.

[Padre]

Nonsensical features like instanced dungeons prevail because without them mindless camping prevails, which is just as nonsensical and far more tedious. That document ignores all of the practical reasons why those elements are present. Yes, permanent death has potential benefits, but tell that to some guy who lost his main character because his connection crashed.

Actually, the document recognises that problem just fine. He realises that short term agony ("I lost my character blah blah") is the reason permaenent death isn't implemented, however good it might be in the long term.

With instancing, it's slightly different - instancing replaces camping, which was bad in the short term AND long term. Instancing is merely only bad in the long term, and thus preferable. However, it also won't be replacable by any new philosophy which is bad short term, but good long term, as the article describes.

What we have to hope for is game design which can provide short term rewards while maintaining a continually rewarding long term game.

[The Mad Hatter]

Nonsensical features like instanced dungeons prevail because without them mindless camping prevails, which is just as nonsensical and far more tedious. That document ignores all of the practical reasons why those elements are present. Yes, permanent death has potential benefits, but tell that to some guy who lost his main character because his connection crashed.

Actually, the document recognises that problem just fine. He realises that short term agony ("I lost my character blah blah") is the reason permaenent death isn't implemented, however good it might be in the long term.

Supposedly it's the "newbies" that think in the short term and would feel this way about permanent death or instanced dungeons, but I think they're simply practical solutions. I don't see any long term vision that more experienced players have that would incorporate something different.

[ChrisGwinn]

Instancing is nice because it preserves the mood of the setting. For me, one of the big problems with fantasy MMORPGs is that there are just too damn many heroes running around. It doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't feel right, if your brave band of adventurers runs into six other brave bands of adventurers trying to do the same thing, plus a guy yelling "PENIS" over and over again.

Interestingly, I think City of Heroes worked pretty well because they came up with a setting where it made a certain amount of sense for there to be an enormous number of heroes running around.

[D'Arcy]

For me, one of the big problems with fantasy MMORPGs is that there are just too damn many heroes running around.

What, then, is the point of playing with a Massive amount of other people? You don't need a central server to slaughter AI critters either alone or with a small group of friends.

[Peacedog]

What we have to hope for is game design which can provide short term rewards while maintaining a continually rewarding long term game.

The premise that instancing is always bad in the long run is absurd. It isn't a bad long term design decision - it's just one that changes the nature of the game (some will prefer one way, some others), and to be sure those changes have ramifications that often aren't considered in the short run (but that's not necessarily relevant). If the goal of the game is to force you to make as many new friends as possible, instancing might be a detriment.

Gaming is a social activity, and most people desire to be social with their buddies. The article suggests that by allowing instancing your have people hanging out with the same people over and over, doing the same treadmill. Well. . .if people want ot hang out with the same people over and over they should. I reject the notion that this is always the result of instancing. I think there are plenty of people who do pley with a regular group of friends but who also vary who they play with. This is parituclarly true when you get large guilds. As for the treadmill, that doesn't have a damn thing to do with instancing. That's the nature of the game design. How dungeons work has no bearing there

Perma death (or "starting from scratch" to look at it from a higher level) fits into the same category. It doesn't make sense in most games. It does in some (rogue likes, for example - and it is just perfect there). Would you want to have to start over every time you died during a long CRPG? Of course not.

[SuperHiro]

I'll quote Shaithis from Gamespy. He and Fargo were discussing the Middle Earth MMORPG. I'm paraphrasing here.

The problem is that you'd end up with a thousand Frodo's camping the ring spawn. The fact is, we all can't be Aragorn or Legolas. We all the small orcs that they kill.

I don't think that article is taking thisinto consideration.

If you're going to make a true virtual world you better make damn sure at least 90% of the inhabitants are sane.

[The Mad Hatter]

I'll quote Shaithis from Gamespy. He and Fargo were discussing the Middle Earth MMORPG. I'm paraphrasing here.

The problem is that you'd end up with a thousand Frodo's camping the ring spawn. The fact is, we all can't be Aragorn or Legolas. We all the small orcs that they kill.

I don't think that article is taking thisinto consideration.

If you're going to make a true virtual world you better make damn sure at least 90% of the inhabitants are sane.

It's the "Raph Koster school of game design" problem. Come up with a great idea that doesn't work in the implementation. Having a game with no pk switch and player justice is wonderful, but it fell down in UO because OSI didn't support it at all. They did nothing to encourage or reward player justice, and did nothing to prevent rampant cheating. The result was a griefer's paradise that drove people away. I loved it anyway but I recognize that it was a losing model.

[ChrisGwinn]

For me, one of the big problems with fantasy MMORPGs is that there are just too damn many heroes running around.

What, then, is the point of playing with a Massive amount of other people? You don't need a central server to slaughter AI critters either alone or with a small group of friends.

I generally don't play these sorts of games. I did my free month of UO when it came out, and a couple of months of CoH. WoW seems appealing, for some reason, and I'll probably pick it up.

The appeal is being able to find a small group to play with, the economy, and a few other things. It's why I played Diablo 2 on battle.net, even though I frequently played by myself. I just don't have that many friends who want to play online PC games with me.

[Faldarian]

What, then, is the point of playing with a Massive amount of other people? You don't need a central server to slaughter AI critters either alone or with a small group of friends.

Because instancing isn't single player games set aside from the main multiplayer one. It's areas set aside where you can be in the game world without having the logistics problems of having a finite amount of content being absorbed by a large amount of people at the same time.

Frankly, I think that article is completely off-base and borderline idiotic. It is based on the Raph Koster school of thought, where the virtual world is more important than the game that goes on within it.

Newer generation MMO's, which by all indications are becoming gigantic hits, are making these innovations that value fun over realism in their worlds. This article seems to completely ignore the fact that these are video games designed to be entertaining and fun rather than a scientific exercise in creating virtual worlds.

I plain and simple would not ever play an online game with permanent death. Would it do most of the things mentioned in the article? Sure it would. But it's not fun to the average gamer. How many times would you play Morrowind if you had to start over every time you died?

Instancing would be even more of a requirement in that world, since you'd have more new characters running around. Overcrowding forces camping, which nobody likes, not to mention a host of other problems. If there is a better solution for this than instancing, I've yet to see it.

This article makes me think of Star Wars Galaxies in far too many ways, and that game is the straw that broke this camel's back. For me, I'm done with "virtual worlds".

If you want a successful MMO you need to design the world around the game the players play, not vice-versa. If game developers look at every feature they put into new MMO's with the first question being "Is this fun?", we're on the right track... and the latest pair of them seems to have been developed with that approach.

[bluefugue]

The "ralph koster" stuff you speak of seems kinda interesting to me (never heard of the guy though), but maybe more interesting to read about than to play.

Anyway, shouldn't the MMOG market be wide enough to bear variations? Have a permadeath PK world for the hardcore, have something more hand-holding (a la Tabula Rasa perhaps) for the more mainstream, and fill the spectrum wtih various combinations...

[D'Arcy]

The "ralph koster" stuff you speak of seems kinda interesting to me (never heard of the guy though), but maybe more interesting to read about than to play.

Then you'll be delighted to hear that Raph Koster actually wrote a book.

Anyway, shouldn't the MMOG market be wide enough to bear variations? Have a permadeath PK world for the hardcore, have something more hand-holding (a la Tabula Rasa perhaps) for the more mainstream, and fill the spectrum wtih various combinations...

Hopefully the market can bear far more than endless recombinations of Diablo...