I was looking over at Scott Jenning's blog the other day, and he was commenting on some pundit's laundry list of the things that need to be fixed about MMORPGs.
The list was basically:
1) Make the worlds more engaging
2) Ditch classes and levels
3) Make combat smarter
4) Don't make me grind
5) Make mobs smarter
6) Encourage grouping
7) Quality of life
8) Make subscriptions cheaper
9) Listen to, and engage with, players
10) Launch when it's finished
And these were all good points in themselves. However, I can't help but think that it's actually a bit like Einstein walking into the room with a batch of physicists and seeing 14 blackboards full of equations with "E=" on the left side, shaking his head, and saying, "No, I've thought it over, and now I'm pretty sure E just equals MC^2."
Here's my theory:
In terms of what the individual players are tasked with doing, MMORPGs should entertain in the same way any other game entertains. From each individual player's perspective, the game is going to entertain in the exact same way a single-player game does, so don't use the fact you're making an MMORPG divert your attention away from how much game value it offers. (For example, flow theory.)
Take any of the ten principles above, and just about every one of them is related to this. Even a subscription price can be considered in terms of "how much entertainment value are you getting for your dollar." Listening to your players is necessary to know if they're being entertained.
MMORPGs bring one thing to the table that other games don't, and that's spectacle value. Basically, when you bridge the gap from one player playing the game by themselves into one player playing the game with infinite other players, you're introducing just that: a spectacle.
Recently, I was involved in quite a bit of debate about whether or not it was okay for a player alliance to be sabotaged in EVE Online. In terms of risk versus reward, it was a travesty: several thousand players were delivered a massive penalty, and they were helpless to stop it.
As a game, EVE Online disappoints me because the mechanics involved with turning asteroids into equipment (pretty much the backbone is the game) doesn't entertain me. The most exciting activity in the game, the ship-to-ship combat, is basically just pushing a few buttons at the right times with perhaps minutes between them. On top of this, EVE Online is a game where being scammed is actually encouraged, so long as the very flexible EULA is not voided. As far as I'm concerned, what little game value EVE Online has is pretty much sabotaged.
However, the game is still quite popular, even becoming more popular because of the fall of a major player alliance. Why? Because of the sheer spectacle value involved. This game features the rise and fall of completely player built empires. Even if it's not something you can touch or directly interact with, this is very gripping. There would seem to be more than just a "game value," it seems there's also a "spectacle value."
So our E=MC^2 of MMORPGs is:
MMORPG Bliss = Game Value + Spectacle Value
Game design isn't an exact science, so you're going to have to work out your implementation of "Game Value" and "Spectacle Value" just as how the universe had to work the implementation of "mass" and "the speed of light."
You may notice that, if this is was a mathematical formula, just having a really high game value or a really high spectacle value is going to work to generate a pretty good value of MMORPG gaming bliss. This is intentional. However, if you can pump up both to a fair degree, it explains why MMORPGs seem so much more interesting: they've got this whole extra addded value on the right side that most games don't.
It's also important to know that some people are going to find the game value more important than the spectacle value, or vice-versa, and that even a good game won't appeal to all gamers.
However, as a lens in order to judge the overall gaming bliss your MMORPG is capable of generating, I think this is a good one.
(This would mean more if I would put up or shut up. Well, I'm still working on the motivation to put together a game. Hrmph, nobody expected Einstein to come up with a time machine after he came up with E=MC^2.)
MMORPG Bliss = Game Value + Spectacle Value ?
Seems like these are both dimensions of game value, and not best explained by summation. Not that this formula is going to herald much value. However when you make up a highly theoretical non mathematical utility equation, things that exist and are bottlenecked by weakness in the other dimension are usually expressed. MMORPG Bliss = Game Value X Spectacle Value That is to say that there are only two highly general dimensions to what makes an MMORPG good. I want to be supportive of this, however I am forced to read far too many management textbooks that blurt out useless formulas with no practical meaning, so Im rather bitter about your blog entry in general. Aside from that I would just constructively recomend treating it as a product of these two factors, not a summation. Other factors you missed would be: -Accessibility (ie how affordable is the game, what are the requirements? can and do all my friends play. This was a huge reason that WoW was so popular, anybody with a 400 dollar laptop could play, whereas games like Age of Conan had much higher spec requirements and caused people to find it hard to retain the same network of social friends which is paramount for an mmorpgs success) This also would include user friendliness, as in how confusing is it for somebody to get into the swing of things in a game as well as subscription costs. -Balance: I've seen all to many mmorpgs fail because of a lack of balance. If you choose a class and spend time on it, you are stuck in this role. If your class turns out to be disadvantaged to other classes and there is no way to reconcile this, then the game will fail. | |
IcewarriorX wrote:
I see alot of MMOs nowadays with barely any work put into them at all...and they rake in cash shop money. Runescape is also pretty cheap, as well, when I used to play, it was 60$ a year. | |
I personally think 60$ a year for runescape is incredibly expensive, considering there are plenty of one time fee online games that are cheaper than 60 dollars that dwarf the quality of runescape. And also there are several free MMORPGS as well that are of higher quality.. in my opinion.
| |
It's important to recognize there's a difference between "MMORPG bliss" and "making money."
That said, I see a lot of spectacle value in Cabal Online - from the massive PvP mechanics to the Devil May Cry inspired animations. The timing-based combo system is not particularly lacking in game value either in that it has an excellent challenge ratio. The tricky bit is as much in finding/recognizing these values as employing them. | |
Geldonyetich wrote:
Hrmph, nobody expected Einstein to come up with a time machine after he came up with E=MC^2. That's because E=mc^2 demonstrates mass and energy are the same thing. Doesn't say much about spacetime or closed-timelike loops. :P | |
Popisfizzy wrote:
Geldonyetich wrote: Sorry, I took it a step or two further, since this came from his relativity theory, and then spun it in an ironic direction that they'd expect him to build a time machine off that. To a great extent, building a game from a theory is sort of like that. The theory is not that heavily related to the game. But rather, a game is a working model that would benefit, in ways, from the theory. I've got a long way to go from theories to game, but if I remember them it might just lead to a better result. | |
Masterdan wrote:
I personally think 60$ a year for runescape is incredibly expensive, considering there are plenty of one time fee online games that are cheaper than 60 dollars that dwarf the quality of runescape. And also there are several free MMORPGS as well that are of higher quality.. in my opinion. no, there are no free MMORPGs that are higher quality. Pretty much all of the free MMOs nowadays are the same...And make a small update maybe once a year...and its usually a crappy update at that. The only free one that really puts in as much effort is maybe maplestory, but I hate maplestory. | |
Yeah, I honestly dont like any MMORPGs so I certainly dont know much about free ones. Other than I felt Runescape was one massively popular MMORPG that I honestly felt some of our better developers on BYOND could actually outmatch!
| |
Cabal is a perfect example, same with pretty much ANY free MMO. (9dragons, 2moons, silkroad, flyff, anything related to OGPlanet, Ijji, or acclaim, the list goes on.)
All of these games would be so much better if they actually made a worthwhile update once in a while.
Spectacle value doesn't matter much at all, that's why runescape is a much better game than any free MMO, because they work on their game. Creative Intent + Game Value.
If an owner loves their game enough to update it, etc...It'll be a much better game than if they're trying to make money the main priority.