Richard Bartle: "MMOs are for Newbies"

[DarkSign]

MMOs get dumbed down

Not really earthshattering to the people here...actually it supports Codex positions and feelings on MMOs....

 

[ixg]

It's good to read nonetheless; he basically sums everything up perfectly. And the second post is entertaining.

 

[Human Shield]

Well who wants to pay monthly fees when interaction is more flowing and dynamic? I think a realistic online world would require less time online and the returns for spending too much time in one sitting is low.

In a dynamic online world your pace is going to be tied to other players. If you want to sell stuff other players need the money to buy, there aren't NPCs with unlimited gold that buy unlimited amounts of anything. Most quests are going to be when another player wants something done instead of quest vendors that never close.

If you are paying by the month you are going to want constant content, which is what they are catering too.

If when you bought the game you got 8*30 hours (8 hours a day for a month should be enough) that don't expire; you could log on when things need to be done and then log off when finished instead of expecting unlimited content 24/7.

Or some other payment plan.

 

[Tiliqua]

Well thought out post, there's obviously going to be a problem creating a good mmo if the mindset of the market demands features that are contrary to that outcome. Seeing as WoW is so popular (especially with new mmo players), I guess we should expect instancing and grinding in future mmos for quite some time. Dull.

 

[suibhne]

I don't think instancing is that bad. Granted, I have very little MMORPG experience (outside of lots of GW, which really doesn't count), but the point of instancing isn't just to play with your friends; it's also to get rid of the indescribably asinine spawn-camping bullshit requiring you to wait in line for an hour to go after a high-level mob for a small-percentage drop. I've seen enough silly EQ videos to get the impression that this was a genuinely serious design problem - am I mistaken?

Other than that, he's spot on - especially about the lack of consequences for failure.

 

[DarkSign]

No - you're right about instancing - it's a viable and even intriguing design option. Think about it - an instance that configures to the strengths and shortcomings of the characters that jump in is just one possible use.

 

[Nael]

No - you're right about instancing - it's a viable and even intriguing design option. Think about it - an instance that configures to the strengths and shortcomings of the characters that jump in is just one possible use.

Why not just play on one of the persistant NWN gameworlds if that's your thing... for no monthly fee?

 

[Human Shield]

Instancing is complete bullshit, instead of designing a real balanced world you pay a monthly fee to keep some fucking worthless stats and play on little servers, when Diablo, NWN, and Guild Wars are free. Instancing is just fucking coop mulitplayer instead of a real dynamic world. And now people want to play a monthly fee for some reason to SOLO through the whole game in private areas, how the hell is that muilplayer? A real world shouldn't have a bunch of pocket universes where people do the same chores forever, you should be able to be hunted down and killed.

 

[Nael]

...you should be able to be hunted down and killed.

A-fuckin-men.

 

[aweigh]

Instancing is complete bullshit, instead of designing a real balanced world you pay a monthly fee to keep some fucking worthless stats and play on little servers, when Diablo, NWN, and Guild Wars are free. Instancing is just fucking coop mulitplayer instead of a real dynamic world. And now people want to play a monthly fee for some reason to SOLO through the whole game in private areas, how the hell is that muilplayer? A real world shouldn't have a bunch of pocket universes where people do the same chores forever, you should be able to be hunted down and killed.

UO ftw? Gawd, those were the days.

 

[HanoverF]

Nice to know Volourn doesn't have a patent on saying jaw droppingly stupid shit on these forums

 

[Binary]

Instancing is complete bullshit, instead of designing a real balanced world you pay a monthly fee to keep some fucking worthless stats and play on little servers, when Diablo, NWN, and Guild Wars are free.

QFT

Why not just play on one of the persistant NWN gameworlds if that's your thing... for no monthly fee?

Persistent NWN worlds also have another advantage: the DM can set the "death penalty". One PW I played for more than 6 months had a *harsh* death penalty: lose all xp for that level, all gold and all equipped items. Definitely not dumbed down!

 

[spacemoose]

UO ftw? Gawd, those were the days.

if somehow I was able to wipe people's memories of UO, I'd do it, just so I could experience it again 'for the first time'. the way it is right now, on free servers, everyone's a vet, and the fun days of scamming and raping are gone.

 

[Ladonna]

The almighty 'Mogrin' has shot the post down...whoever he is. Such prose, such arguments.

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

Mogrin does have a point , in a way. He doesn't know who Bartle is, but Bartle does make a number of sweeping statements and generalisations. Yes we know MMORPGS don't suit our tastes and are for the most part crap but as Mogrin says some people just want a distracting treadmill.

 

[MountainWest]

"The market for regular computer games is driven by the hardcore. The hardcore finishes product faster than newbies, and therefore buys new product faster than newbies. The hardcore understands design implications better than newbies. They won't buy a game with features they can see are poor; they select games with good design genes. Because of this, games which are good are rewarded by higher sales than games which are bad."

Even though he's probably not talking about the HARDCORE-hardcore, I don't think this statement is true. I'd say that (especially) the rpg-market is driven by the newbies.

 

[ixg]

I also thought that when I read that part. He's wrong, just look at the games that are released (and popular). Most are not geared towards experienced players. (Sucks.)

 

[spacemoose]

would you describe yourself as an "experienced player" ?

because I want to be there when you do

 

[ixg]

I just meant that many games are so similar to others that they are easily understood and beaten. Which is probably why they concentrate on graphics.

 

[spacemoose]

I was observing how "experienced player" in real life is the POLAR OPPOSITE of "experienced player" in the world of games

 

[Jasede]

First off: I did not read the essay.

Now...
I am sure that massively multiplayer games are indeed for newbies in the way I think the essay explains it.

Just one thing I wish to add: If you take away the massively, you are left with things that are actually tolerable.

A good example are some of the better persistent worlds of NWN. The best have permanent death (as it should be), other good ones have harsh XP penalties on death (33% of total XP, all gold, all equipment). Such servers usually enforce RP and are run by experienced DMs with an age that is usually around 30. Thus, they actually provide immersive quests and interesting playing experiences. The server I was on was low level, too, a big plus for it actually means that level 5 is quite powerful indeed, as it should be in D&D.

The best example for a Codex-friendly multiplayer game that I know about is Armageddon. I have mentioned it quite often now, even though my limited time does not allow me to play there anymore. It is a MUCK, which means there are no distracting graphics. Let me once again mention the features:
* harsh, gritty, Dark Sun-esque world
* players can and will change the game world all the time
* permanent death. Yes. A good thing. Once you die, you die. The harshness of the world means that one might very well be killed by another player for a bit of water or a handful of coins.
* danger. Intrigue. Despair. Choices and consequences (yes, yes). Players have power, and use it. If they live long enough to amass that power, that is.
* newbie-unfriendliness. A good feature, in my opinion. While there is help in written form available, NO ONE will be nicer to someone ICly just because he is new. In fact...
* NO OOC. NO METAGAMING. AT ALL. NONE.
* players that can type and write. And write well.
* well-written room descriptions.

There you have it. What could a Codexer dislike about a game like this? Thus my point stands: the idea of a multiplayer game is not inherently bad, but once you allow the 90% of morons with an internet connection to play them too, they suddenly turn into stupid money and time sinks that reward patience, not skill.

 

[ixg]

Must...try.

 

[StraitLacedDeviant]

The best example for a Codex-friendly multiplayer game that I know about is Armageddon.

Link please, the Armageddon.org link I googled is dead.

 

[ixg]

http://www.armageddon.org/intro/adpage.html

I'm reading it now and it sounds great.

 

[Human Shield]

I can't do text interface, feels like you need graph paper just to move around the city filled with stores and items I don't know the value or purpose of. They need solid map and item guides or else my supposedly skilled character feels like an amnesia patent.

I tried Armageddon and it had the same problems, I think the NPCs used text phrasing too so you couldn't even get much info without knowing their system. Not to mention just a few players online that you can't tell from NPCs and roleplaying prissy characters. It needed a better manual.