The Cosmopolitan MMO: A Stillborn Dream

Beatnik59

I was about to post something to Quirhid's thread.  It's locked now, but I think he brings up an interesting observation, and one we ought to seriously address.

Quirhid and I don't agree on a lot of things.  We do, however, agree on some things.  I was, for example, pleasantly surprised when he offered an articulate defense against permadeath a while back.  But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.  Sometimes--perhaps more times than we'd like to admit--we, as posters, share more in common than we realize.

But it's the differences that tend to cause the big fights.  I don't need to elaborate on the issues here.  We know them all too well.  And we tend to frame the issues in such a way as to place them in Manichean terms.  Why do we do so?  Why do we argue so fervently for our preferences, to the exclusion of other preferences?

I think a lot of it has to do with the malleability of games, generally, and MMOs, specifically.  We have witnessed, for example, wholesale redesigns of games, turning them into things wholly different from what they were.  We have also witnessed games close down.  The stakes here seem rather high, "If I don't lobby--and lobby hard--for the things I like, they can be taken away from me."  What saves this from being an exercise in histrionics is that fact that it happens, and happens all too frequently, in game publishing.

It is interesting, for me at least, to see the powergamers lament for the days of marathon raids and forced grouping.  There was a time when the genre actually cared about such powergamers, and bent over backwards to give them the kind of highly competitive, clan-based gameplay they demanded.  But they did so by taking away the kind of slow-paced, deep, roleplay driven experience I liked, and people like me enjoyed.   Back then, in the days of SWG, we had powergamers demand that sitting in front of a dancer doing her schtick wasn't "content."  But quests for Mandalorian armor was.  Is it any wonder, then, when the CU and NGE double downed on quests, and nerfed camps?

It is ironic that those same powergamers are behaving today like the roleplayers did a long time ago, or that the PKers did with Trammel.  "REAL MMOs do X, Y, and Z!  These new games are just crap."  And, to them, they are.

But the thing that this genre taught us--more than anything--is that the things you enjoy from it can be taken away from you for reasons wholly unrelated to your ability to enjoy them.  What I, Quirhid, Nariusseldon, DamonVile, Scot, Elikal--or anyone here--likes from this genre can disappear or be replaced.  And they will for the same reasons as they have always disappeared: your demographic isn't "sexy" anymore, your playstyle doesn't pay the bills, your demographic is too hard to please, and so on.  You may be satisfied with the status quo, but you will become the minority, someday, as well.

And so, we argue.  We argue that our needs are not met.  We argue why another's needs shouldn't be met.  We argue that, since our needs are met, their needs ought not be considered.  And we stamp our feed down and say, "Your fun stands directly opposed to my fun."

What seems lost in all of this discussion is what I would call "the cosmopolitan MMO," or a kind of MMO that can bring players of diverse interests together under one roof.  It's a game where roleplayers have their props, emotes and tools, powergamers have their ladders, quests and loots, casual-tourists have their tour, immersion junkies can get lost in the world, and PKers can have their victims, and so on.  Sound impossible?

It is only impossible because of our "all give and no take" attitudes, isn't it?  If we have no interest in roleplay, roleplay tools are seen as a waste of developer resources...a waste that can go towards quest chains.  It gets harder with regard to things like PK; nobody likes to be a victim.  And so, why should the PKer get a game that allows him to gank, when the majority of people don't like to be ganked?  The needs of the many, they would say, outweigh the needs of the few.  Frankly, I was like this too.

But, over time, I've become open to the possibility.

Maybe it's because I'm a roleplayer; one of the most marginalized groups in MMOdom today.  But it soon occurred to me after WoW's runaway success that if I am going to have any chance of getting back some of the roleplaying environments I had in SWG, I was going to have to build coalitions with players who don't enjoy the same things I do.  These are, after all, social games that involve people with diverse interests.  Like any community, it requires a virtue that we need to resurrect:

Tolerance.

I may not like to be ganked.  But there are others, out there, who like to gank.  Who am I to say that they can't have what they like?

My problem is different.  I'm looking for a place where roleplay and character-driven gameplay is respected.  Those gankers might not like roleplay.  But can they, at least, TOLERATE it by following IC/OOC rules?  If they can, and if they support those mechanics that facilitate roleplay, isn't suffering the occasional gank from time to time worth it?

I think it is in our interest to think about ways to make the tent larger; to think about ways that we can all get what we want.  This will, of course, also require a bit of compromise on our parts to give everyone else the things they want.

 

Haites

The problem is that you simply cannot create a game that will appease everyone, yet the developers either try to do that very thing or they ignore the minority in favor of the majority.  The fact of the matter is, there are many more players who are casual than are hardcore, and as such all new major games cater to that larger demographic.  If you are a casual player you don't have to argue anymore for what you want, it is already there en masse in just about every direction.

When players who favor a more "hardcore" style try and talk about things that they like and want in a game (hearkening back to past games where they had it), they are met with disdain and extreme resistance by those who think their solo or casual style is being infringed upon.

The reality is, the hardcore gamer is dying out because they are being systematically eliminated.  Those who prefer that playstyle shouldn't be relegated to second tier games, one-offs, and ghosts of games that are long past their prime.  Casual players will never lack for gaming options.

Forgrimm

Originally posted by Beatnik59

What seems lost in all of this discussion is what I would call "the cosmopolitan MMO," or a kind of MMO that can bring players of diverse interests together under one roof.  It's a game where roleplayers have their props, emotes and tools, powergamers have their ladders, quests and loots, casual-tourists have their tour, immersion junkies can get lost in the world, and PKers can have their victims, and so on.  Sound impossible?

That game already exists, it's called World of Warcraft. And the fact that it caters to so many different player types is one of the reasons why it's the most successful MMO to date.

Foomerang

@beatnik59

I read your post and agree with most o fit. I am also part of a marginalized mmo group: the non combative player. I have had to learn to give and take in order to try and enjoy an mmo the way I enjoy playing.

I will take your point one step further and say that it is not Tolerance that is the ultimate goal, but Acceptance. Maybe for now, tolerating each other is the best we can do. But that is a slippery slope because if you look around this forum, people will defend intolerance, in the name of tolerance. And then you're back in the dark ages.

maplestone

I like MMOs to be sprawling creations that have minigames for everyone, but there are some playstyles which  are fundementally imcompatable and cannot be placed on the same map at the same time. 

If player A wants X in their game and player B wants no X in their game, then giving everyone some X and some not X is not the solution.