Hate for MMORPGs: fundamental or fixable?

[[not in the MMORPG forum, since I'm particularly interested in the perspective of those who have little/no interest in MMORPGs]]

I recently got thinking about MMORPGs, specifically with regard to progression systems - an even larger can-of-worms in a MMO setting than in a single-player game. Scrapping progression is an obvious "solution", but I'd like to think that that's not the only way to proceed. In looking for other solutions, however, it's quickly necessary to rethink most areas of the game. I think it'd be necessary to do a whole lot unusually to get a reasonable system - but I think it's doable.
I've never played a MMORPG, but I have no fundamental objection to them. I'm not overly keen on the subscription charges, or the huge time-sink potential, but the primary reason I haven't tried one is that I'm not interested in what they (most?) currently offer.

There are clearly advantages to single player RPGs in terms of putting over a coherent, complete story/plot. However, I'd have thought that a MMORPG would have natural advantages in more simulationist terms.

Presuming that the grindfest aspect of most MMORPGs were fixed or eliminated, what's the main objection to MMORPGs for those who're primarily after dynamic, expansive, reactive worlds, rather than story? Is it a focus on pointless combat? Is it a focus on uninspired quests that have no advantage over single-player games? Is it the lack of significant impact of any individual/party? Is playing a small part in world events less interesting than determining much of the course of the world yourself (assuming equivalent reactivity/variety/choice+consequence... in each case)?

Do you think any current MMORPGs are doing everything possible to play to their strengths (if any)? (as good games - not as means of parting compulsive cretins from their cash)
If so, what stops you playing them? (or why do you play them, if you do).
If not, what could be improved, and do you think you'd play one that fixed your current issues?
[[NB - don't assume that the time-sink issue is unfixable. That's one of my main objections, but there's nothing to say that a MMORPG can't avoid giving bonuses proportionally to duration played (even the reverse is possible: using a scenario where anything over a certain game-time/real-time ratio is naturally, smoothly penalised - both in terms of character progress, and in terms of world influence)]]

Specifically on skill/stat/level/loot progression, do you think any MMORPG with these (in any form) is doomed to become a horrific compulsive-yet-monotonous treadmill? Do you think such progression systems would be an asset if fixed (i.e. to incentivize interesting behaviour), or do they just need scrapping entirely? [are there MMORPGs without progression already? Do they still suck? If so why?]
Personally I think either could work - but that scrapping would be a whole lot easier than getting progression right.

Other thoughts?

Online gaming can be a whole lot of fun, but there are two problems that always seem to ruin it: Cheating and personality conflicts. I don't see solutions for those coming anytime soon. So the entire point is moot as far as I can tell.

the only MMOs I tolerate are MMOFPSs and that ain't going to change

MMO's will never be as reactive as I'd like them to be - simply because it is impossible to tailor content for millions of players

I have no interest in fagging it up larping with fat nerds or grinding rats (whether in a global environment or instancing - doesn't matter)

basically the only attraction MMORPGs have for me is the opportunity for griefing, which UO had in spades

MMORPGs generally very very suck.
Grinding takes a lot of time and then more time is needed to craft some crappy armor and weapons.
The only positive thing I had in MMORPGs was some roleplaying (omg!) in Lineage 2. It happened when the clan where I was took over the main castle and it took some wit, black PR and diplomacy to hold it. People in MMORPGs are so simple = easy to manipulate
So only this what I can call a plus and it didn't last too long.
In all other time the 'gameplay' there was shit.

To me, they're competitive games with really perverse, anti-human winning strategies. I can't treat them as sims or RPGs for even a moment. But it's the stuff that makes the winning strategies anti-human - the alternate, persistent reality nature of the gameworld, the lack of concrete victory conditions (and thus an end), the grating socializing to form fluid networks that need constant maintenance - that make them MMORPGs. I don't see any way to rectify the problems.

Squeek said:

Cheating

Click to expand...

If character information is kept on the server, and success doesn't revolve around combat, is cheating really inevitable? Are you thinking more of in-game exploits or of hacking the client? I don't see either as inevitable - so long as there's a willingness to do things very differently.

personality conflicts

Click to expand...

Maybe this would always be an issue, but I'd guess it could be worked around to an extent by constructing the gameplay to aim for a certain type of person. Having things not revolve around combat, loot and levelling would probably be a good start.
Of course there's also no reason to suppose that any extremely open communication model needs to exist. The extreme case of throwing out all verbal communication is probably a step too far, but there are a huge range of possible anti-moron restricted communication networks - again, so long as there's a willingness to get weird with the setting/situation/modes of interaction.

Here is an article that describes the kind of cheating that goes on. As far as personality conflicts, I honestly can't imagine any way to avoid them completely. It doesn't take much to spoil an otherwise good time.

Spacemoose said:

MMO's will never be as reactive as I'd like them to be - simply because it is impossible to tailor content for millions of players

Click to expand...

The ideal should be that the content IS those millions of players. "quests" should be formed by PC-PC interactions - not handed out by NPCs and performed by gangs of PCs who occasionally stop to beat the shit out of other gangs of PCs.

The millions of players is the only advantage MMOs have over single player games. They're potentially a great resource. The trouble is that they're only being used as treadmill-walkers currently. Start requiring them to set up / participate in interesting PC-PC situations, conflicts, collaborations... to get their precious progression, and they'll do it (or quit because it's too much for their tiny minds).
The total lack of of ambition/achievement in using this resource is, quite frankly, pitiful.

I have no interest in fagging it up larping with fat nerds or grinding rats

Click to expand...

There's your problem: the separation between the two activities. In a well constructed setting/game, the larping and grinding would be the same activity: so the larp wouldn't be a larp (it'd have substance), and the grinding wouldn't be a grind (it'd have variety/collaboration/subtlety).
Clearly that's easier said than done - but so far little attempt has been made at this that I can see.

skyway said:

MMORPGs generally very very suck. Grinding takes a lot of time and then more time is needed to craft some crappy armor and weapons.

Click to expand...

Sure - but that's entirely avoidable with the right design.

The only positive thing I had in MMORPGs was some roleplaying (omg!) in Lineage 2. It happened when the clan where I was took over the main castle and it took some wit, black PR and diplomacy to hold it. People in MMORPGs are so simple = easy to manipulate.

Click to expand...

Why couldn't this sort of thing be much more common? If subversion / strategy / knowledge acquisition... were more important+effective than direct combat, this sort of thing would be happening all the time (so long as there were enough grey areas in the situation).

zomg said:

the alternate, persistent reality nature of the gameworld

Click to expand...

Would a situation where your "character" would naturally enter/leave the "world" quite often help with this? He needn't be sitting around doing nothing/training/working... in the persistent world: he can quite literally, coherently not be there, since the setting is such that characters naturally have an interrupted existence in the "world". Too contrived??
Also, once you've gone that far, there's no reason to suppose that a character who spends a long time "outside" the "world" needs to lose out in terms of influence etc. (due to the time in which others have been acting in the world and he has not). It's quite possible to have the character gain energy/power/influence/potential when not in the world [e.g. think of the characters as spirits/powers/gods, and the "world" as one particular plane].

the lack of concrete victory conditions (and thus an end)

Click to expand...

Is this the problem, or is it rather the overall stasis of the world? If the world could change radically in response to collective player action, would there really need to be an end? Personally I'm not bothered by the lack of a conclusion - I'm bothered by the lack of large-scale change, novelty, unpredictability, response to my (/my faction's) actions....
If huge, unpredictable, large-scale events were possible, there could be many fitting "ends". [alternatively, some MMORPGs already have a fixed total time - though I'm not sure that makes much sense]

the grating socializing to form fluid networks that need constant maintenance

Click to expand...

Do you think that an element of urgency might improve this aspect? - a situation where most talk were to-the-point through necessity. Also, the lack of transferable items/loot might help - ideally things would be balanced so that players would be very reluctant to give up valuable resources without something tangible in return (no cases where item X is worthless to one character, but extremely valuable to another).
Hopefully a world under constant, significant threat of undesirable change would be enough for most players not to want to give up valuable influence in exchange for kind words alone. Similarly, such pressure might reduce the odds of pettiness. There'd always be a significant down-side either to getting nothing practical from a deal, or to not accepting a mutually beneficial deal through pettiness.
I think that in the right circumstances, with the right mechanics+balance, pragmatism should reign.

Of course that doesn't preclude a social element, but it ought to minimize its impact on success/influence.

I'd play a Godfather MMO, like a business management sim crossed with GTA driving/shooting.

I see only one hope for this type of game, which is ironically merging different genres into a single, dynamic virtual world with realistic economics and politics where NPC merchants won't have limitless supplies of resources, social events will be more than virtual conventions, PCs being able to control territory through wealth, power and influence and more... Basically what I suggest is a MMO Civilization-like persistent and completely dynamic world where you take the role of a less powerful character that has the opportunity to shape the world around you. "Guilds" then could be more than just 1337 kidz getting ph4t l00t. They would be the essence of all the balance of power in the game, and the basic structure for anything that is PC-owned from religious movements to corporations, or even entirely player built independent nations where people who care about immersion could write in-game things like Constituions, organize the government and so on. And such "guilds" would require continual funding or else would go bankrupt, making them more than an Out-of-character groups of fanboys, furries among the other typical guilds of typical MMOs.

Its gameplay would be a encounter of 4x, RPG, Squad-based tactics and Tycoon genres and offer all these elements or only one. You could just be an adventurer and ignore all the Strategy and Tycoon part that involves "guilds" in this game, and joining a group adventure would give new tactical options in combat as well. Persuasion would be more complex as most valuable resources would be at the hands of PCs rather than static NPCs and so on... but nobody would dare trying to make such game I fear.

Squeek said:

Here is an article that describes the kind of cheating that goes on.

Click to expand...

Ok - but that's all a consequence of game mechanics. Success in action games revolves around activities at which bots outperform humans. Success in complex, dynamic strategy games revolves around activities at which humans outperform bots. Similarly, humans can communicate more effectively about unpredicatble domains than can bots.
Bots can be eliminated as a source of cheating simply by basing success at the game around activities at which they suck. Make it about communication and strategy, and they'll suck horribly.

Securing against things like teleportation isn't rocket science - but again, it's only vitally important when increased speed of travel gives a player significant advantages. That's much more true in action-based games.

As for economy exploits, once you eliminate the usefulness of phat lewt, you eliminate both the treadmill to acquire it, and the economic lunacy/exploits created.

I agree that you might need to take drastic steps in avoiding potential exploits, but I don't think that it's impossible.

As far as personality conflicts, I honestly can't imagine any way to avoid them completely. It doesn't take much to spoil an otherwise good time.

Click to expand...

Not completely, perhaps - without eliminating verbal communication -, but I'd guess you could bring the odds down significantly.

Without the treadmill, how many would cancel their accounts after a few months?

the best way is to ignore the verbal assault of the bastard and do not respond...

and then just without any words shoot his head off (or if odds aren't on your side... simply bring him a train of mobs when he is grinding - of course if you have some means to escape, like BSOE (a scroll that teleports you to the nearest safe no-pvp area in a blink of an eye) in L2). And then ignore his insults over pm.
I found this to be the best and most effective personal diplomacy in MMO.
plus - it looks totally badass.

Cassidy said:

Without the treadmill, how many would cancel their accounts after a few months?

Click to expand...

Exactly the right amount: those who weren't entertained by the process of playing the game.
The game would actually have to stay entertaining - the horror.

galsiah said:

Cassidy said:

Without the treadmill, how many would cancel their accounts after a few months?

Click to expand...

Exactly the right amount: those who weren't entertained by the process of playing the game.
The game would actually have to stay entertaining - the horror.

Click to expand...

Level treadmill is cheaper and less time-consuming to develop, just like Oblivion dialogs in relation to dialogs with real choices and consequences. As the majority doesn't complain about it, the laws of the free market incentive developers to maintain it as a tool to keep people paying monthly fees for more time than they would without it.

Cassidy said:

Level treadmill is cheaper and less time-consuming to develop

Click to expand...

Than what? The mechanics of the level treadmill cost next to nothing to develop. Similarly, non-treadmill-incentivizing mechanics cost next to nothing to develop - just a little more intelligence, and a desire to entertain rather than addict.
Who said anything about replacing a treadmill with huge amounts of hand-crafted content? I've already suggested that hand-crafted content sucks as a means to exploit the potential of MMO games, so it's naturally not my preferred alternative to grinding. Rather, gameplay activities ("quests" if you like) should emerge out of PC-PC interactions. So long as the initial conditions provide significant+conflicting needs, aims and motives, "content" should just happen. [easier said than done, but sound in principle]

As the majority doesn't complain about it, the laws of the free market incentive developers to maintain it as a tool to keep people paying monthly fees for more time than they would without it.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Games sell better with such a mechanism than with nothing at all. That's no argument that games can't replace it with something better, or indeed keep the progression but remove the treadmill.
All I'm advocating is stopping it being a treadmill. It can have almost entirely the same elements in terms of progression, so long as the process is interesting. (again, the process doesn't need to involve tons of pre-made content - just for the "generated" "content" to be more interesting than a treadmill).

In any case, the argument is utterly spurious on a financial level - if, as a developer, you want to make a game that isn't required to appeal to everyone and his dog, don't invest huge sums in development. The highest development costs are in development of content - so find a way to slash that. The running costs are generally proportional to the number of players - past a certain level. The important factor is predictability/stability of that number. That's not necessarily going to be any better with a treadmill. Ongoing development costs are going to be proportional to the amount of new content you need. If that's little or none, costs are low, and there's less incentive to keep people paying at all costs.

If a developer really can't find a way to reconcile quality with financial viability, then they should do the world a favour and fuck off.

u can always join RP server if you wish to avoid 'leet' kids. but the main problem with MMO is the lack of 'story' progression. After a while, everything became stagnant, which is probably why I treat World of Warcraft as a single player RPG with sporadic grouping to finish the original raid content.

I finished most 5 man raid contents, it was enjoyable with a grp of friends, but when it's time to move up to 20-40 people to get anything done as well as weeks of farming to get shiny gear, I'd rather do something else.

The lack of social interaction in pvp is a problem as well since they conveniently added super guards to kill you near town, and language bariers to prevent people from communicating.

Treadmilling is inevitable, they want people to sub beyond the first free month at least, so they need to make sure the top level content is only achievable by looong gameplay in the first month.

Frankly, I love exploring, but going to higher zones at 5 levels behind the mobs = death sentence, so MMO don't really reward risk-takers much.

galsiah said:

If a developer really can't find a way to reconcile quality with financial viability, then they should do the world a favour and fuck off.

Click to expand...

Quoted as a powerful impact message in the context of next-gen games.

RK47 said:

u can always join RP server if you wish to avoid 'leet' kids. but the main problem with MMO is the lack of 'story' progression. After a while, everything became stagnant...

Click to expand...

Ok - but you can avoid that by focusing things on more of a dynamic-world-simulation than a story. So long as the world simulation is complex enough you should be able to mix things up to get fresh gameplay for a long time. Naturally it'd appeal to a different set of players (if any).

Treadmilling is inevitable, they want people to sub beyond the first free month at least, so they need to make sure the top level content is only achievable by looong gameplay in the first month.

Click to expand...

Even if that is so (and I don't concede that it needs to be), it's not the case that "Treadmilling" is inevitable. It simply means that a long period of progression is inevitable - what makes that "treadmilling" is that it's a dull, monotonous grind. It doesn't have to be. Players aren't doing it because it's a grind - they're just not put off enough by that to stop. It could be a wonderfully diverse, dynamic, challenging, responsive process without losing any of the benefits of such a progression system. It'd just need to be integrated with gameplay that isn't a monotonous grind. Is that really such a big ask?

you have to ask UO developers what were they thinking when they made standing still and putting a paperweight on a keyboard for 6 hours before you can actually 'survive' in the wilderness.

The MMORPG world aim is to make sure it's 'massive'. Which is why content takes a long time to add in, because they need to make sure it meshes well, I'm sure no single player game would require 50 people to login and test it at the same time. To add 'buffer' time between contents add-on, they need to put levelling treadmill, because that's wat keeping the subs level maintained.

galsiah said:

zomg said:

the alternate, persistent reality nature of the gameworld

Click to expand...

Would a situation where your "character" would naturally enter/leave the "world" quite often help with this? He needn't be sitting around doing nothing/training/working... in the persistent world: he can quite literally, coherently not be there, since the setting is such that characters naturally have an interrupted existence in the "world". Too contrived??

Also, once you've gone that far, there's no reason to suppose that a character who spends a long time "outside" the "world" needs to lose out in terms of influence etc. (due to the time in which others have been acting in the world and he has not). It's quite possible to have the character gain energy/power/influence/potential when not in the world [e.g. think of the characters as spirits/powers/gods, and the "world" as one particular plane].

Click to expand...

This is one of those things where I have a hard time visualizing alternatives. I can't easily imagine a game with a world that continues whether I'm playing in it or not where my constant interference would not be a perfect benefit for my state. In the obvious case where, say, my winning strategies become more easy to realize for every hour I don't play or something... I can't really imagine how it would function.

Incidentally, if you don't know, both Ultima Online and WoW have "short-timer" bonuses that make it easier for people that have less time to play to stay at parity with others - in UO the first hour you spent online provided more skill/stat increases than any subsequent (the Power Hour) and WoW has a reserve of "rest XP" that you gain by staying offline, which then goes into doubling your earned XP. It's just that these things don't even make up for a fraction of what serious nerds get into, and I don't see how you could make a game of any complexity where that wouldn't be the case.

the lack of concrete victory conditions (and thus an end)

Click to expand...

Is this the problem, or is it rather the overall stasis of the world? If the world could change radically in response to collective player action, would there really need to be an end? Personally I'm not bothered by the lack of a conclusion - I'm bothered by the lack of large-scale change, novelty, unpredictability, response to my (/my faction's) actions....
If huge, unpredictable, large-scale events were possible, there could be many fitting "ends". [alternatively, some MMORPGs already have a fixed total time - though I'm not sure that makes much sense]

Click to expand...

A lack of a final win state undermines the value of a competitive game, which as I said is how MMORPGs strike me. Most of the pleasure of a good competitive game is the finality and immutability of a win or loss. I think this is where MMORPGs actually make a lot of their money, because most people can't conceive that they're poor players, and MMORPGs provide a competitoid environment where everyone thinks they're winning. I'd bet that 75% or more of the playerbase of current MMORPGs thinks they're in the top 10% of skill/power/influence/whatever.

the grating socializing to form fluid networks that need constant maintenance

Click to expand...

Do you think that an element of urgency might improve this aspect? - a situation where most talk were to-the-point through necessity. Also, the lack of transferable items/loot might help - ideally things would be balanced so that players would be very reluctant to give up valuable resources without something tangible in return (no cases where item X is worthless to one character, but extremely valuable to another).
Hopefully a world under constant, significant threat of undesirable change would be enough for most players not to want to give up valuable influence in exchange for kind words alone. Similarly, such pressure might reduce the odds of pettiness. There'd always be a significant down-side either to getting nothing practical from a deal, or to not accepting a mutually beneficial deal through pettiness.
I think that in the right circumstances, with the right mechanics+balance, pragmatism should reign.

Of course that doesn't preclude a social element, but it ought to minimize its impact on success/influence.

Click to expand...

I can't visualize it.

they need to make a game where players depend on other players for resources. not dumping every loot to the vendor for magical gold coins that never go out of print. it's one of my primary beef in mmos.

When progression is just a matter of time input, power gamers will always prevail. This generally leads to the inevitable virtual life syndrome that we see so often. Competition of progression elements is doomed to this inevitable weakness.

Personally, I see this "MMO" genre better suited for mixture with other genres. FPS' are great in this because it's an extension of the present mechanics. Running and gunning to no end. More action the better. In fact, action is all that matters in an FPS. Contrary to this is the progression element that current developers believe is the main aspect of an RPG.(This has been the case for years! It's part of the decline I believe) So, MMORPGs adopt this element and the above situation occurs.

All MMOs to date fail in development because the developers don't start with a clear vision. They simply try to add in very addictive elements like progression, pvp, and time intensive competitiveness. This leads to profit as more people become addicted and play. So, I don't think an MMO will appeal to this audience until capitalism decides that money isn't the only aspect of their investment. So we'll be waiting for pigs to fly. /shrug

Designing a world simulator is just as complex as redesigning real life. They need to stop trying to design a life simulator and make a game that gives the illusion of simulation without the depth. Focus your game on specific aspects of your vision to define the reason people will want to play and give these elements depth. Taking on player driven economies, crafting, and guild progression that has to function like a corporate enterprise to be successful is not going to work. These things are far to complex to simulate for the casual player.

I wish I could offer a better vision, but frankly I can't think of one. My only real addition is that they should stop wasting time on simulation and focus on a vision of gameplay. Let the economies, player driven markets, phat loots, and ridiculous time requirements go. If a casual game is good enough to keep people paying $15 a month while only needing a few hours of their time a month, you've got a success on your hands.

Edit: Wanted to add that even a casual MMO player could be considered a "Hardcore Gamer" because of the time they spend playing. So, the MMO genre currently takes Hardcore to the next level. It's fucking masochistic at this point. I would be willing to bet that a majority of MMO players spend 40 Hours or more a week playing them. Think about that for a minute. Insane!

Ok, so it looks like 20ish hours a week for the majority (60% of players) and more for the other 40% of which may be addicted.

Addicition article:
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2006/08/08/ ... _addicted/

Stats article:
http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/000891.php From 2005 and doesn't consider WoW

My gripe with MMOs will always be the monthly fee.
Since its an investment you never see a payoff to.
play long enough you reach lvl563 but its mostly useless until the next official expansion then the grind starts all over again.
Secondly when an MMO dies that is it , it might have been going strong for 5yrs and you were there at the start when the servers shut down thats it, you install discs become useless, your online stats equipment irrelevant.
Which is why i prefer the guildwars method of online gaming sure since there is no monthly fee the games themselves will never drop in price the way a traditional mmo's will after a period of time for the core game or the core game and an expansion, and some of the core mmo elements people enjoy like camping out at specific point for a spawn is not there but you at least know when the guildwars servers close you only spent a fixed fee and not over 100 dollars or more for game play over several months or years.

I hate all persistent, artificial vertical growth based on time. Growth can be fine in a round based system where you can start fresh with everyone in a reasonable time (think RTS research) but when the guy that put in 2 years can kill me because he has 100x HP and not because he is a better player; I'm not going to waste time to build up because I don't want to fight people with artificial handicaps.

There is also the problem of having a massive multiplayer environment but making everything done solo, which is paying a fee for a single-player game to show off how much you grind to others (similar to the XBOX achievements). This is something I will never get; I don't know how developers have hoodwinked people into thinking repetitive actions are achievements.

I would prefer a design close to a massive board game, which would have a victor and restart. I believe WW2 online does this, take that approach. People that want a 'second life' want no end states and being able to sit around forever, this is while people that want to play the game eventually max out their character and are left in a static worthless world. They can wander around in a P&P game doing nothing for years if they want, they don't need a massive graphic chatroom to do it for them.

And I hate monthly fees. Paying for 300 hours is enough to last a month for hardcore people (10 hours a day for 30 days) but would let people stop and start whenever they want.