What do MMOG'ers want?

[Lurz]

I really think that a lot of frustration with class archetypes, abililties, content, raid size, group size, etc. are pieces of the same central issue: what do we the human player want out of the game - not just this game, but gaming in general. Entertainment is to shallow, and without going into a lengthy discussion of abstract goals, you can name interaction, and choice, fantasy, imagination, friendship and community come to mind. Achievement, collectability, the list goes on with what motivates a player. Ultimately though, it seems to me that the debate has become constrained by thinking only inside the current mmog experience box, and needs to rethink what we all as players need from our free time/entertainment.

I'd like to talk about this more extensively, and don't have the time currently, nor is it within the realm of possibility to attempt to explain human motivations fully, but I'd like to start a thread where we really analyze from a game theory perspective (or perhaps entertainment theory is a better label) what the best product is to capture entertainment audience with a game. I'd like this to be a continuing debate/discussion, and even if it's only with myself I plan on coming back and reading/posting (I typically move on from thought to thought, but I'm going to make a commitment here, and the forum is a nice tool to help with that).

I want to start though with a somewhat focused point, and then expand as we develop the theory behind gaming as I said above. The following is a quote from a post on the Vanguard forums concerning class archetypes:

"When you boil it all down to the essence, a group/raid in a fight needs three things. They need someone to absorb damage. Someone to heal damage. And someone to do damage. That's why we see the archetypes we are seeing... those are the basic needs of a group.

Other abilities come in handy. Snare to prevent runners, crowd control, buffs and debuffs, etc... and that's where the class differentation comes into play."

I just want to point out a feeling I get when I read this - shallow? Predictable? Too basic? Perhaps it's just that I'm disappointed in myself that my entertainment source for my mind boils down to three simple roles. Not that this is groundbreaking news, nor something I haven't been disappointed about in the past, but it does shout out to me "YOU KNOW THIS WILL END AND THERE WILL BE A SUPERIOR FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT TO DEVELOP."

Unfortunately, I've run out of time earlier than I expected, so I'm going to cut to the chase. This form of entertainment is essentially our imagination's desire to live a fantasy life. Whether it's speaking with a British accent, chomping on a mutton leg at the local Renaissance fair, or taking up swordplay in the back yard, we want a fantastic adventure. Pen and paper rpg's took me there in part, but I was younger and required less media. I'm not sure mmog's are getting me any closer, and it's not just the media and quality of reality (although that may be part - speaking and thinking may be better tools of escapism than looking at a flat screen while sitting in the same position for hours at a third person view of a cartoon, which is inferior to your mind's eye on an adventure). However, I think it's also the quality of the game. I didn't call over my buddies IRL for a sweet ass night of grinding on random mob encounters behind the old DM screen. There was adventure. There was story. There was personality (think about it - personality is what drew many of us in to guilds/friendships in group and guild chatter; recent games have gone further away from that). Anyhow, I'm hoping we can talk more about this, but the current mmog's seem to me to be on the verge of being outdated. The complaints aren't unfounded, they are just misplaced - calling for minor changes in mmog's will not solve the gamers underlying desires; revolutionizing the game itself will.

The Lurz.
Who asked the Lurz?

[Elrar (of Silky Venom)]

I to get aggrivated at the "there are only three roles" posts.

This is the sort of mentality game design doesnt need. To me gaming means doing something that I cannot normally do. Be it casting spells, or running through lush fields of lands far away. What makes up this world, and the rules that bind it, should not and cannot be subject to the common mindset in order for it to engage me like nothing else has.

Essentially, my ideal MMO, would be for everyone to play in my imagination, as it should be for everyone, as thats essentially what we're trying to achieve by playing these games, and video games in general. It is getting in touch with that inner child, and embracing the the fun we had in our backyards, or our cover forts, or with the kids down the block.

I used to become a blazing warrior with just a stick and a trash can lid, now its not so easy, because I keep setting my standards higher, so high that I can no longer provide myself with the tangible experiences of my imagination on my own, so I turn to gaming.

With the essential impetus behind me, I now focus on the parts of a game that keep me there, and those are: a feeling of accomplishment, and a spirit of commradere. I want to feel special, I want to be unique unto myself. I want to do this with my friends too, and have them feel the same way, and really embrace the heroic feeling these games attempt to imbue into us.

If a game cannot fancy my imagination, and provide me with these two things, then it fails. It can have all the shiny baubles and gimmicks it wants, but it failed at the core of it, to me it is because the game itself does not have the soul of the inner child, that yearning look to the future, with a twinkle in its eye.

Granted, there are other things that can break the game, but these are what a game must achieve in order for me to take to it at all, and then I will see the rest for myself.

Thanks for starting this conversation Lurz, because I believe it is one that isn't touched on enough. People look at the features of games to define the success, I however feel for the game. See but do not look, for the eyes deceive the mind!

[Lurz]

I'm glad you shared your thoughts - I agree with much of them. Sorry for my delay in response, but know that this is a daily debate that I engage my friends in (Oloh, Shrill and others, including non-willing participants like my wife!).

In any event, I agree that the goal of the game is probably twofold: to entertain and to socialize. From there, I think that the entertainment piece can be fulfilled if it satisfies our imagination to feel that we are actually living that experience. In this genre, we want to live in a fantastic world, seek out adventure, and fight for success (I think the heroic battle against death, without real life consequences of dying is a big part of this - taking risks we could not take IRL - as much as enjoying a different, mystical world).

I'd like to develop really a tiered down chain of principles like the above until we reach a definition of the game that should meet the expectations of the mmorpg player base. That is the goal of this thread.

But first, perhaps we should discuss the good and the bad of other games that have come before. For instance, on a very basic level, I believe that anything that contributes to mundane combat and "grinding" is generally adverse to what our goals really are - it's an evil that isn't necessary (or I don't like to think it is). Also, a focus on efficiency and an overload of information can also ruin that experience and frustrate our goal of entertainment. Interestingly enough, I would argue that an overload of information (too many messages in your chatbox, too many factors influencing outcome - debate whether hidden factors are overload, but at least the explicit factors communicated to the player by the game) ruins the social experience - because it's too much information to process in the chatbox and you will miss messages from other players, not have the time to feel that you are keeping up, or even just not have the time to socialize as you would like. So my main complaints are (i) the mundane and (ii) information overload. I think the first is harder to "fix" than the second. Game developers can easily remove the amount of communication the game makes with its playerbase, or the manner in which it is communicated. The first, however, requires a serious examination of the fundamental game design. Issues like size of world, travel, realism, playability (solo v. group), challenge and many more complicate this issue. But, I believe at the root, these are the two main problems facing mmog's currently on the market.

Now, I'm not saying the above paragraph is the be all end all of this discussion to define a game, but rather the next step I'd like to discuss - what has disappointed us about past games? As an example, I think there is a way to make games exciting, unique, and with the feeling of epic adventure for an mmo crowd - I think EQ acheived it with each of their expansions having npc lore culture that culminated in an epic battle called a raid that required the teamwork of many players together, and motivated the playerbase to experience the adventure. I'm moving off of my point a bit here, but I think EQ was a great step forward, but since that game, I haven't felt that any game has improved in a way that has made it a better game. Lineage II had massive pvp battles that certainly are a great feature to consider for inclusion in our ideal game. WoW added the true pen and paper adventure feel with the scripted dungeon content. But both of these games fell short in other areas. This is why I would like to figure out - what are we looking for in our next game.

Back to work, will next have a chance to post tomorrow night.

[Dillgaar]

For me, I think it is the excitement of coordinating with your friends to do what you can't do alone... I like the alone time to kick back and relax at my own pace and I greatly enjoy grouping with a few buddies and shooting the sh*t whilst you slay away getting good exp and phat lewtz... but in the end I get the biggest excitement out of the bigger raid style encounters... not necessarily the "you need 100 zerglings to kill mob x" kind of raids but the raids where at a moments notice anything could happen and you have to be on guard at all times to catch on and eventually succeed... I know planned strats take a lot away from this BUT they don't necessarily mean you will succeed... I was playing EQ back in the day when vox and naggy were end game... my guild at the time took 2 groups into permafrost (one group of mid 30s to low 40s and one group of mid 20s to mid 30s) and we had it out with the ice giants... (at the time the giants were levels 48-52 I believe)

we were there for hours killing the things and even had a GM come and check on us because we killed the highest level IG (level 52) but there was no one around that was close to that level (max at the time being 50) so the GM came in to catch an exploiter but sat and watched us fighting them... they started laughing cause we were all dwarves and gnomes but sure enough we took the IGs down... not necessarily a raid encounter but definitely what later defined many small raid encounters I have gotten to be a part of and which I look forward to in Vanguard.

[Sergo]

I didn't call over my buddies IRL for a sweet ass night of grinding on random mob encounters behind the old DM screen. There was adventure. There was story.

Key, my friends, is story. It was the stories we wrote together that made EQ1 a smash hit. Ample evidence exists on the OVF player stories forum. In fact, my OVF sig says "The goal of every game designer should be to get players to say, 'Remember the time when we...'"

What factors work against story? I think soloability does because it reduces your cast of characters. But to a greater extent, instancing and "easifying" do. Instancing cuts out the "and then this guy came along and..." stories. Changes that make challenging elements of the game easier seriously undermine the game's ability to create stories. How many of you have a memorable corpse run story? Take out corpse runs, and all those stories are gone.

On the subject of things games have done right, City of Heroes has made combat tactical and ranged combat meaningful. Your facing, position and cover on the battlefield all matter.

[Skarlath]

Involvement.

This is really a bit of a cheat's answer, because in my eyes it spans a broad range of things already mentioned.

Involvement in stories. We are choosing to play fantasy mmorpgs, and so obviously the medieval fantasy world appeals to us. Players want to feel involved in the world - in the lives of folk who need revenge on local orcs or in what faction controls certain lands. Immersion is a good word for this - players want to be part of the fantasy setting, at all levels of it.

Involvement in community. As part of wanting to feel involved in the fantasy setting, they want that fantasy setting to have real, alive components. They want a setting that responds to them, and this is of course through other players. They want to feel that they are part of the living breathing fantasy community to complete the fantasty illusion. They want to be involved with great things, and great things requires other community members.

Involvement in adventures. They want to be there. They want to know that their choices make a difference and that their skill plays a role. That their coordination as a team makes feats possible. They want to know that if it was anyone else try this, those others would fail.


Recently the gaming company known as Bethseda, the creators of the Elder Scrolls RPG series, released a 20 minute video (http://www.vanguardsoh.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23844) of their upcoming Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Now though combat is far more 'twitch based' in many aspects, something I would like those who haven't already to check out.

Dungeons really do look like an adventure. In current MMORPGs it is just the same fighting all the way through a dungeon. Thats not adventurous! Watch the video - see how aggro works (if you are in viewing distance, they will react to you!), check out the awesome traps (dodging them would require skill, and negotiating a whole team past them would be extremely exciting!), check out the multiple ways of dealing with any combat-related situation! In MMORPGs the only possibility is to just aggro and fight it out. Why?!

Sure Oblivion is a singleplayer game, but it looks involving. There is no reason why MMORPG design cannot change to accomodate new solutions. If it provides player involvement, then it provides what players want.

[Lurz]

Those are all great thoughts - we are getting somewhere, and I think there is a common theme, an "answer" if you will to the current insufficiency of games on the market. We need to come up with the list of critical elements. More soon.

[synjiin]

In any event, I agree that the goal of the game is probably twofold: to entertain and to socialize. From there, I think that the entertainment piece can be fulfilled if it satisfies our imagination to feel that we are actually living that experience. In this genre, we want to live in a fantastic world, seek out adventure, and fight for success (I think the heroic battle against death, without real life consequences of dying is a big part of this - taking risks we could not take IRL - as much as enjoying a different, mystical world).


First, perhaps we should discuss the good and the bad of other games that have come before. For instance, on a very basic level, I believe that anything that contributes to mundane combat and "grinding" is generally adverse to what our goals really are - it's an evil that isn't necessary (or I don't like to think it is). Also, a focus on efficiency and an overload of information can also ruin that experience and frustrate our goal of entertainment. Interestingly enough, I would argue that an overload of information (too many messages in your chatbox, too many factors influencing outcome - debate whether hidden factors are overload, but at least the explicit factors communicated to the player by the game) ruins the social experience - because it's too much information to process in the chatbox and you will miss messages from other players, not have the time to feel that you are keeping up, or even just not have the time to socialize as you would like. So my main complaints are (i) the mundane and (ii) information overload. I think the first is harder to "fix" than the second. Game developers can easily remove the amount of communication the game makes with its playerbase, or the manner in which it is communicated. The first, however, requires a serious examination of the fundamental game design. Issues like size of world, travel, realism, playability (solo v. group), challenge and many more complicate this issue. But, I believe at the root, these are the two main problems facing mmog's currently on the market.

Now, I'm not saying the above paragraph is the be all end all of this discussion to define a game, but rather the next step I'd like to discuss - what has disappointed us about past games? As an example, I think there is a way to make games exciting, unique, and with the feeling of epic adventure for an mmo crowd - I think EQ acheived it with each of their expansions having npc lore culture that culminated in an epic battle called a raid that required the teamwork of many players together, and motivated the playerbase to experience the adventure. I'm moving off of my point a bit here, but I think EQ was a great step forward, but since that game, I haven't felt that any game has improved in a way that has made it a better game. Lineage II had massive pvp battles that certainly are a great feature to consider for inclusion in our ideal game. WoW added the true pen and paper adventure feel with the scripted dungeon content. But both of these games fell short in other areas. This is why I would like to figure out - what are we looking for in our next game.


1)What are our goals as they relate to playing mmo's?

a)Are we here to build relationships? Become part of the lore or have an effect in it?

b)Mundane grinding xp to get to what?? What is it we are after? each phase in our journey has differnt effects on our overall outcome. If we put a newborn american baby in a asian home that child devolops differently.

2) Information overload can easily be resolved imho. via journey logs, books, or notepads. Giving us the ability to seperate our chat boxes and the use of filters will help as well.

I create a character in the likeness of what I best perceive he should become if its a evil overlord or the seeker of all thats good, but also to be at the very top of my said class or close to it because of how i am in real life very competive and wanting to win. In turn acheiving said goal with like-minded people I can call friends.

[Sergo]

an overload of information can also ruin that experience and frustrate our goal of entertainment

Forgot to mention this yesterday, and it's kind of tangential, but that's what ruined these last 3 Star Wars movies. Remember the drama of the Obi-wan/Darth lightsaber battle, or one x-wing and 3 TIEs flying down the canyon on the Death Star? In the last three movies, they used special effects to put a backdrop of mass warfare behind the main characters. It was too visually confusing and took away from the action you were supposed to be watching. It took away from your bond with the characters. In 1977, the technology to do this didn't even exist. The filmmakers were so "preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

Surely this has application to MMOGs as well. For instance, something about those tight, twisty cities in EQ worked. For one thing, you met people more often than you do in the big wide-open cities that are possible now.

So, in closing, advancing technology is ironically what ruined Star Wars. That, and Jarjar.

[Lurz]

/nod on Jar Jar.

[Elrar (of Silky Venom)]

technology...blah


You know, this is something I've noticed, not just for Star Wars, but movies and games in general.

Some of my best memories and fondest games were for consoles that were technologically limiting. As well as movies for that matter.

You look at SNES games, or my favorite game Lunar Silver Star Story for the Saturn. (though the PS Complete version was what really hit home with me) These graphics, like SNES, were not complex, you can make the character models with MS paint. So what made these games so much fun? To me, it is the fact that developers had to actually put thought into story, and create attractive gameplay that kept you engaged. There was no eyecandy, just pure content.

The same goes for movies, granted star wars was revolutionary for its time, but you still didnt have the off the wall's CG stuff you can do today, therefore, they were forced to create a gripping storyline and involve you in the story, and actually care about whats going on, not just be visually stimulating.

You could even go as far to say the Matrix followed suit, it was lower budget for the first one, utilizing revolutionary technology, however they took advantage of their ability to create these awesome effects, that the whole philosophical and psychological took the bench, and it became just another special effects filled shallow action movie.

In the poll posted before, about where I look first, I do go strait for the eye candy, why? its the easiest most direct thing to see if this game will be enjoyable or not to play, because lets face it, if I'm going to be playing it for hours on end, I expect it to look good for its time.

But the heart of the game, should always be found in the FAQ, however many gamers tend not to visit the sites, and well lets face it, FAQ's wont really say something they know you won't like. It's all about candied up advertising, and the average gamer eats it up.

So what we eventually wind up with in todays high tech world, is beutiful looking games, that sell, but lack the longevity and involving plotlines or gameplay to keep us coming back for more.

The graphics pull a gamer in, but the gameplay keeps them there, its unfortunate that publishing/dev houses see only the call of the almighty dollar for the most part, and cut the development time, to pump out a really nice looking game, with shallow features that sound pretty and sparkly at first glance, but add up to nothing more than a pile of tripe within the first few hours/days of playtime.

There are of course exceptions to this, but I think the good game to bad game ratio has separated greatly over the past decade, and towards the wrong direction.

Chrono Trigger and Earthbound arnt alot of old gamers favorite games because of their graphics, it is undoubtedly their ability to capture the imagination, and involve us in entertaining and gripping storyline and gameplay.

The flashy magic of the computer age, has really dulled down the real magic that made movies and games great.

Good point though Sergo, thanks for bringing it up!

[Skarlath]

1)What are our goals as they relate to playing mmo's?

The things I mentioned in my previous post, citing 'Involvement' as being a key factor (or pattern between key factors) were really factors that pull players in. There are certain motivations that keep players logging on.

Motivations:


Character Progression - A desire to level, to increase stats. This may be as part of competition with other players, or just so players can better themselves.
Item Progression - Similar to character progression, the detached desire to get items (armour, weaponry, housing, housing decorations) so as to compete with other players or feel a sense of achievement.
Story Progression - Lore can be very important. Often players will log on for the specific purpose of being able to further a story quest, or take part and therefore understand a story event.
Content Progression - The desire to see places, and experience the world. This might take the form of wanting to see an ancient elven PoI, or to experience the deepest depths of Nusibe Acropolis. To see a nesting drake, or to or to stand before the king of Targanor.
Community - This is quite broad. This might range from just building on relationships with other players (a very general, subconcious human desire) to inter-community competition, such as building a fantastic player city.


Any I have missed? Im positive I have forgotten something.

Anyway - these motivations are small attractions we have. When for a second our minds think about what you are going to do once logged on (as the loading bar slides across the screen) it is these motivations that stop us from going 'Meh, Ill do something else'.