Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Major problem in MMORPGs - Overemphasis on content quantity
Creslin321
Member Posts: 5,359
How long does it take to reach the level cap? What will I do at max level? We need more raids/BGs/dungeons!
These are all common questions/demands often thrown around here on the forums. We're always complaining that there isn't enough to do in MMORPGs and we want MORE MORE MORE!
But TBH, I think that this line of thinking is misguided. MMORPGs, as compared to almost any other game genre on the face of the planet, have TONS of content. In fact, I personally rarely quit an MMORPG due to lack of content...instead I quit a game because the content ceases to be enjoyable. In fact, I've never played an MMORPG where I completed "everything," and I think that it is very rare indeed for a plyer to do this.
Moreover, if you look at other games that have roped players in for years and years, like Starcraft, Street Fighter, CoD, Civilization, or even Chess, you will note that it's not the fact that these games have TONS of content that keep people coming back, it's the fact that the content they have is just so GOOD that people don't want to stop playing. The strategic nuances and fast paced gameplay of Starcraft even spawned professional sporting leagues is South Korea. And many people keep playing the CoD game du jour all the way up until a new one comes out.
So I think that MMORPGs really need to stop trying to make SO MUCH content, and instead focus on making the content they have so good that people will want to keep participating in it. I for one, would be much happier quitting a game because I ran out of fun things to do, than quitting a game because I just got sick of the metric tons of drivel that it offers.
Thoughts?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Comments
There is no conflict in asking for MORE *and* BETTER content. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
Plus, players don't "ask for" stuff. Developers are not charity. We choose games based on the AMOUNT *and* quality of content. If a game is fun enough, good value enough for ME, i will PLAY.
Everyone should just vote with his/her wallet.
It's the virtual world vs game thing. Make a game and people finish it, make a world and they can live forever.Actually there is a conflict. Game dev studios have limited resources. They can spend these resources make an ass-ton of mediocre content, or they can spend these resources make a small amount of excellent content, or something in-between.
I'm just saying that I think there is too much emphasis on quantity over quality right now.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I think the whole sandbox vs. themepark thing illustrates my point a bit.
In UO, there weren't really any quests or anything. There was just a big (mostly barren) world, and systems that allowed you to manipulate and alter that world like housing. I think that the quality of the housing system really drove UO to what it became.
The devs focused on making a really good system for player towns and social interaction instead of just putting a bunch of cheap scripted crap in the game.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
No one wants to live in a boring world. MMORPGs are games .. every game got boring at some point. Better to finish a game with good content, then move onto the next.
It's a byproduct of giving people what they want. People want games/content to be extremely easy so they can "see" it. Then the developer makes it so, the people "see" it, and want more. The problem? Good content should be difficult, and if it were, it would take TIME to see the content. People would have to hone their strategies, and perfect their execution to "see" this content. This would take up TIME.
People don't want to put in effort or time, and yet they always want more content. You can't have it both ways. There is no game developer that can put out new raids / dungeons every week, yet game developers recently think it's ok to put out raids / dungeons that can be cleared in a week.
I don't completely buy the "everyone is an idiot and they ruin game design" argument. Starcraft 2 is well known to be a pretty difficult game. And it sold over 4.5 million units...
http://news.bigdownload.com/2011/02/09/starcraft-ii-sales-approach-4-5-million-units-still-no-release/
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Oh I thought we were talking about MMORPGs.. here in this MMORPG forum... my bad.
It's the virtual world vs game thing. Make a game and people finish it, make a world and they can live forever.No one wants to live in a boring world. MMORPGs are games .. every game got boring at some point. Better to finish a game with good content, then move onto the next.
And yet the world of Ultima Online has over 100,000 subscribers still after 14 years to take an example, not everyone is like you, if you get the right combination of toys in a world with a good community, people can play a different game every time they log in,I agree entirely.
SWTOR is a perfect example - 8 stories is months of content, but tons of people burn out after 1 because repeating the same grindy mechanics becomes boring.
The thing about chess, starcraft, CoD, LoL etc.. is that they start everyone off at a level playing field and it becomes a battle of minds and reflexes to determine the victor within a limited timespan.
Games that rely on repeating raids over and over, or farming gear for unfair advantages lack 'competiton' and instead involve simply going through the motions. Once you compete everything you become extremely bored.
Easily accessable quick bursts of intense competition that is determined by ability rather than /time played are what games need to ensure a healthy playerbase.
Ah I see, so people that play Starcraft 2 are mutually exclusive from people that play MMORPGs huh?
...My point stands. There were 4.5 million GAMERS that didn't mind a more difficult game. I do not think MMORPG gamers are intrinsically dumber than other gamers.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Except that the MAJORITY of them are. That is what we are getting today, MAJORITY games. Developers / Publishers want to SELL, and make money.
People moved from EQ to World of Warcraft to play a more "accessible" game, *read* easier. WoW vanilla moved from that state, to Cataclysm, because people wanted a more "accessible" game. You can't compare MMORPGs to RTS, Strategy, or Board Games. They aren't the same thing.
But you have no facts to back up that the majority of players are dumb. It's all just conjecture based on what YOU have seen in specific games. And much of what you say is personal opinion. WoW had a lot more over EQ than just being "easier." And yes, you can compare anything with anything if it's applicable to your argument.
I, on the other hand, DO have facts that a well designed, difficult game can still sell a ton of copies.
Also, accessible does NOT mean easy.
Dwarf Fortress is very inaccessible...but once you learn how to play it, it isn't incredibly hard.
Starcraft on the other hand is very accessible but extremely difficult ocne you get into competitive play.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I'm sure there have been billions of chess boards sold over the years too. It's still not even remotely the same thing. And Starcraft 2 being "difficult" is just another opinion of yours, so I don't see how you are calling it a "fact".
Creslin, while his argument sucks, SC2 is not comparable. A single game of SC2 can take just a single session of mmorpg playing to "win".
SC2 also does not have persistence. So while 4.5mil people may be down for SC2 which CAN be but unless you are in a top tier league ISNT more difficult that is still not a viable comparison to MMOs.
I think that when a game is sufficiently challenging enough to become the NATIONAL SPORT of a densely populated country...then yeah that counts as difficult.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-27/tech/south.korea.starcraft_1_starcraft-ii-gaming-market-internet-cafes?_s=PM:TECH
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
You're right that is doesn't apply to a "make an MMORPG like this" argument.
I was just using it as an example to show that a large amount of people do like difficult games, and games with sparse but high quality content can last a very long time.
Also...if you ever played PvP in SC2...it's always difficult no matter what league you're in
. The system will automatch you with players around your skill level, so you'll always be challenged.
The only part of SC2 that could be "easy" would be the campaign if you played every mission on the easiest difficulty.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Ok but once again, it is an RTS. The only thing difficult about SC2 is the level of player you are playing against. The campaigns certainly aren't difficult.
MMORPG players still like PVE. The E part is the part they want more of, it's the part the developers have to work to keep putting out, and it's the reason they pay $15/month instead of just playing chess.
Sure, you can spend 10 years making a game like SC2, and RTS, sell the box and let it fly. People will fight each other all day on it. With an MMORPG, you have to continue adding content to keep people busy. This is what the $15 / month is for, and this is why people get upset when they see their money draining from their account each month with absolutely no yield.
I think games would do this...if they could figure out what makes people want to keep coming back.
Rift is the perfect example of a game trying to find an answer. They keep throwing shit up against the wall hoping something sticks. What you have is somewhat half assed implemented ideas. IAs, Chronicles, Master Modes, PAs...all these systems that just dont seem like fully realized ideas. I get the feeling they keep hoping they will get the one idea that really engages people.
But the flaw in your argument is that RPGs by nature have an exploration factor. You want to venture into the unknown. Once everything is explored it kinda dampens that aspect of it.
I think both devs and players are focused too much on tgraphical quality. The graphical advancements make simple content take longer to produce and it hurts the overall product because of it (IMO)
Actually, with a subscription MMORPG...you just need to keep people playing the game. Doesn't matter why they are playing. Like Refminor mentioned...there are still 100K subscriptions to UO 14 years after release, and it doesn't have the "themepark" scripted content design.
And going back to the "everyone is dumb" argument...if you dont' want to look at SC2 because it's an RTS and can be "easy" in the campaign mode, then let's look at another game.
Dark Souls is a BRUTALLY difficult action-RPG game that has had very little marketing at all...and yet it sold over 1 million units:
http://thesilentchief.com/2012/03/09/demons-souls-dark-souls-sales-top-1-million-worldwide/
I just don't buy this "everything has to be dumbed down for the idiots" argument. Things should be accessible yes, but they don't have to be "easy."
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I was one of the purchasers of Dark Souls. It was the only game I've bought in the last 6 years that I don't feel I wasted money on. It was amazing.
I'm on your side. I wish publishers/developers would go back to making games difficult. I've just been around long enough to know that easy sells more. And while Dark Souls sold 1 million copies, Skyrim sold MANY more. As did every WoW expansion to date.
I know some day an MMORPG developer will aim at the minority again, and that will be a great day for me. I just haven't seen it yet. Everquest Next maybe? Doubt it. It's just a math problem. Do I make a game that may interest 1 billion people, or 10 million people? What percentage will buy this game? Even if you have 100 percent of 10 million buy a game, its still less than 50 percent of 1 billion.
You are missing the point, which is context. Players like difficult RTS games. Or rather, they like playing other people.
But they do NOT like hard AI. The Civ designers talked about this. Players will often accuse the AI of cheating if it is too clever. Even though the AI doesn't cheat and if they were playing another player they would not necessarily make the same claim.
There are SOME players who enjoy hard mmorpgs. But there is not a 4.5million person market.
I think games would do this...if they could figure out what makes people want to keep coming back.
Rift is the perfect example of a game trying to find an answer. They keep throwing shit up against the wall hoping something sticks. What you have is somewhat half assed implemented ideas. IAs, Chronicles, Master Modes, PAs...all these systems that just dont seem like fully realized ideas. I get the feeling they keep hoping they will get the one idea that really engages people.
But the flaw in your argument is that RPGs by nature have an exploration factor. You want to venture into the unknown. Once everything is explored it kinda dampens that aspect of it.
I think both devs and players are focused too much on tgraphical quality. The graphical advancements make simple content take longer to produce and it hurts the overall product because of it (IMO)
Hopefully when there is some cheap/ no upfront cost middleware engines available we will se a lot of smaller developers piling in and we may get to see some creativity and innovation in the genre, much like with the advent of cheap personal computers in the early 80s (lots of individuals and small teams creating games) and the death of the 1st console era (stagnant games from large corporations)What is over emphasized is mechanics to keep people doing the same tired content over and over again.
I did a T2 dungeon in Rift not to long ago. There was a guy in the support slot that wanted to play bard. Two of the group members got snotty because he wouldnt switch to a dps role. "But it will go faster f you go dps". Yes, like 5 minutes faster for the whole run, if that. And this sort of thing isnt uncommon (well support usually loves switching to dps...but people generally dont want support). Because people dont sgn up to run a dungeon because its fun to run the dungeon, they sign up to get their currency after its over. The dungeon is treated as an inconvenience to rush through rather than a fun experience. And this is what MMORPGs have become today.
Dunno what you're talking about, the Brutal campaign on SC2 makes just about any MMO look like a walk in the park. MMO combat generally has next to no replay value and very little of the nuances that competitive multiplayer games do. Hence the focus on quantity over quality.
That being said, tons of quantity isn't always bad for RPGs. In fact, I can't think of a single AAA western RPG that didn't use this as a selling point- think Skyrim, Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Deus Ex, Fallout New Vegas, etc. These games all have a degree of replay value, though, that MMOs generally lack. I'd like to have a totally different experience playing through an RPG as a different class, not simply have to take up a different slot in a triad-based raiding group.