Gamespot calls out the MMRPG genre...

[JonnyG]

In a very good article (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6085963/p-10.html) at Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com), they call out the whole genre and present what they think might fix some of the problems.And all that's just for starters. If an MMORPG were designed to include well-implemented permadeath, player versus player, justice, skill, combat, out-of-combat, and building systems, it could jump-start the entire genre. Just one game could knock down that roadblock and get things moving again. Far off games, such as Trials of Ascension look promising, but it's too far off to tell if the developer's promises will actually materialize. Upcoming MMORPGs might offer the most refined version of the utterly dead formula to date, but that doesn't make up for the fact that the formula is utterly dead. Take away the human interaction, something that the developers had absolutely no hand in, and what's left is a game that can barely be called a game. If change doesn't happen, and happen soon, the whole MMO market is at risk of imploding, thus closing the door on one of the most promising genres in the medium of digital entertainment.Do you agree? Disagree? What do you think of the points they made? Has this guy ever heard of Mythica? A very interesting read (http://www.gamespot.com/features/6085963/p-10.html).

[Azgorath]

I agree with him, but the implementation of a permadeath system would have to take into account many various factors, such as lag deaths.

If anyone is familiar with Nethack, you'll very well know the feeling that arises from playing that game. You never know if you're going to die in just a few seconds and be forfeit of all you've gained...it truly created a unique experience. Not only that, but everything you did had an extra special meaning. Gaining in a skill or mastering a new spell in any of the current MMORPGs warrants very little pleasure, but in a game, such as Nethack, you're simply thinking, "Hell yes!!!" Why? Because you've beaten all odds and you've made it one step further.

I truly hope an MMORPG will embrace these things that he said soon as none of them truly interest me at this point. Mythica is the most interesting out of the bunch, currently, but even that's not saying much.

[Ostracized]

I agree with him on many points however... the guy is a MAJOR fanboi of ToA.

Its an article basicly praising ToA and is being used as an advertisment there. Not that there is anything wrong... just understand it may be abit one sided.

[Moloch]

Apart from the fanboi aspect, the article has two other major flaws.

The first is that he presents his opinions as facts.

Case in point "the MMORPG hasn't undergone any serious appreciable change since its inception". Now that's just simply inaccurate. Compare EQ at release to EQ now. Stability, content, complexity, balance, races and classes. All have significantly changed. Not all revolutions have desirable consequences - just ask the Russians. The genre has undergone evolution rather than revolution and that's not necessarily a bad thing.

He does the same thing with his statements about MMORPGS being "boring and stagnant" without permadeath. That "human interaction" is the only thing keeping gamers playing MMORPGs. That the "ideal" use for magic is non-combat. All opinions. And contentious in and of themselves - even if he had supported them with some sort of logical argument.

Don't get me wrong. Opinions are good, but dressing them up in certainty and declaring them to be true when they're manifestly not gets you failed at any decent school. The only exception I can think of is when the presentation is meant to be absurd and used as a comedic device.

The second is that his solutions are not well thought through.

Look at his skills not classes argument. There's no recognition that there's an opposite side to the story - that classes have their advantages. These include making the game easier to balance, giving characters clear roles in the gameworld, simplifying character design for the non-elite, and making roleplaying easier. More importantly, the major issue with skills in games nowdays in my opinion is not flexibility of toon concept, it's the lack of fun in growing them. Skill systems suffer from "grind" every bit as much as class based systems. Go 8x8 your skills in UO and you'll see what I mean.

His stated 'fact' that allowing duplication of paper in a MMORPG "would create dozens of industries ... (and) add an entire printing and distribution sector" to the economy simply doesn't gel from anything I've learned from my MBA. You see there has to be demand as well as supply for an economic system to work and the demand for game information is already better met than this by online fansites. The only 'very real incentive' here is to disregard what he's said.

I agree that the genre is overdue for change. I personally prefer skill based systems to class based ones but would not pretend that the later is the cure for the common cold. I also agree with the need to overhaul combat. But I think that there are far more problematic issues for the genre then permadeath, PvP justice, out of combat systems and building systems. And frankly, far better argued opinion pieces out there addressing them.

[Ostracized]

Very well said Moloch, i tend to feel some of what he mentions would be a good step forward into truly creating something special out of the MMOG system, i dont agree(with him) that he has the knowledge that those can be done so quickly or so easily.

My biggest concern isnt the fact that hes biased for ToA. but rather that his article although sounding good at first glance, any experienced MMOG player can see holes in his ideals (like Moloch showed) and yet Gamespot still published it. For some reason a game review site posting up a high profile article like this that is so blatently biased towards a specific game bothers me.

[JonnyG]

It's not an article. Gamespot has weekly editorials called Gamespotting, they invite guest editors. Nothing wrong with that. It served its purpose, we went and read it, now we're talking about it.

[Scarne]

Originally posted by Moloch
Case in point "the MMORPG hasn't undergone any serious appreciable change since its inception". Now that's just simply inaccurate. Compare EQ at release to EQ now. Stability, content, complexity, balance, races and classes. All have significantly changed. Not all revolutions have desirable consequences - just ask the Russians. The genre has undergone evolution rather than revolution and that's not necessarily a bad thing.


I'd say EQ hasn't changed. The focus of EQ is still combat, and the focus of combat is still managing aggro. Everything else is nice frills but doesn't change the core of the game.

Of course, given that outlook, other MMORPGs don't have aggro management as their core so the genre has changed.

[Moloch]

Originally posted by JonnyG
It's not an article. Gamespot has weekly editorials called Gamespotting, they invite guest editors. Nothing wrong with that. It served its purpose, we went and read it, now we're talking about it.

Article or editorial, I think it's still less than cooked. Hope it wasn't you as an alt, Jonny ;)

[JonnyG]

Nah, I use greisz as my username there. :)

But if I were going to take the time to write an article I'd just post it here.

Or, maybe it wasn't good enough for HQ so I sent it to Gamespot instead.

[Parthon]

Great commentary on the article Moloch. As I agree with everything you said, you must be some sort of genius. ;)

I am pretty sure that no-one is more aware of issues in today's MMOG's than the companies working on the next generation ones. The problem is that the solutions to most of the problems present in today's MMO's aren't easy. If they were, they would have been resolved by now.

I design software for a living, much simpler software with a much smaller target audience, and even then it is difficult to balance features vs complexity and provide a product that makes everyone happy.

I shudder to think of designing something like this:

It has to appeal to hardcore and casual gamers and provide unique game features. Have to be careful not to make them too unique though or you will alienate people who have become used to playing MMO's in a certain way.

People also want a TON of content immediately at release, along with a large gameworld, but they want all of the content unique and the gameworld to be varied enough so they don't get bored. Oh, and no launch bugs or they won't even bother playing past the first week. But whatever you do, don't ship the game late!

They want it challenging to play so they can have a sense of danger, but boy will they be ticked off if they lose their character or have to spend time regaining points or levels they already earned.

They want varied classes and skills so it isn't cookie cutter, but want to be as independent as possible in the game world because they don't want to have to rely on a character of a different class. They also want a bunch of unique skills that they can use within the game and have them all be powerful and fun, but don't make any of the skills TOO powerful or fun because that can cause game imbalance.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't think wanting any of these above things is wrong from a player perspective, but trying to come up with a computer program that is flexible enough to handle all of the varied desires that people bring to MMOs must be VERY hard. Editorials like the Gamespot one make it sound like everything would be so easy to resolve, just put them in charge...:rolleyes: