Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
[Column] General: Rethinking the Pillars of MMO Design
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
RPG designers often refer to the four pillars (Combat, Progression, Exploration, and Story) when discussing a new game or concept for an upcoming title. Their goals often aim to improve or reinvent one or more aspect(s). SWTOR emphasized their efforts to improve the story pillar, while Wildstar showed special interest in the combat component. There are MMOs that aim to invent new pillars altogether like Everquest Next, while others focus on improving a variable within a pillar such as micro-changes to PVE, PVP, Questing, or the Social component. Could these pillars of game design be stifling innovation or do they merely keep the design process grounded in what works?
Read more of Genese Davis's Rethinking the Pillars of MMO Design.
)
Comments
21 year MMO veteran
PvP Raid Leader
Lover of The Witcher & CD Projekt Red
Exploration and progression have been mostly dead since the first generation of MMOs.
Gear is not real progression, its temporary. The progression part of an MMORPG typically takes a couple weeks now.
I don't know who decided these were the pillars. Some of us have a completely different set of "Pillars" that we would prefer. For instance my "Pillars" would look more like this:
Combat - If you're going to spend 90% of your time doing it, then it had better be good. This is the primary pillar. It needs to be deep, engaging and visually stimulating.
Crafting - Players should be the ones that create almost everything that exists in the game world. No BoE/BoP. Crafting should be difficult, especially high end crafting to encourage it being a game role all in itself rather than just an ancillary role that any character can pick up at lvl 40. It should be a way of life for some characters.
Skill Based - Players should have a dozen attributes and hundreds of skills available. As they perform certain tasks in the game world they earn points to put towards their attributes and skills to improve their character. This will allow for flexible characters rather than the highly limiting class/level that is the staple of most MMO's.
Grouping - There should be skills, equipment and createable chat windows that encourage grouping. Give players entire sets of leadership skills which will improve their entire party's abilities. Give players the ability to create equipment which will buff the entire party rather than just one player. This will encourage players to seek out communities simply for the benefits of having a good "leader".
What are these "pillars" you speak of? What game did you have in mind when you thought of these? Is this list intended to be subjective for each individual reader or are you putting thee out there as a general rule?
Combat - There were / are MMOs out there at one time that had non-combatant classes. They developed other skill sets besides fighting skills such as crafting and community building. Combat doesn't need to be a pillar. FF14, Ryzom, EVE, formerly SWG and possibly a few others have non-combat paths players can walk.
Progression - should be a pillar. Everyone wants it, but no one can agree on how to best implement it. And different games have tried different methods. So if it's a pillar, it's been a weak one in recent MMO releases. At least in terms of the genre overall. Individual games not withstanding.
Story - That's part of the problem, It's not a pillar. MMORPGs don't need to tell a story. They need a world where players, over time will create it's history and thus tell the story.
Exploration - Not everyone needs to explore the game world. There is a huge sub-population who only want to explore their options on how to combine or modify their gear/stats to eek out that .001% DPS increase. and then take it into their favorite instances to see how they have benefited.
Yeah, these "4 Pillars" are lacking. Everything you mention as "what ifs" have been done before, just not well in many many years, guessing you missed out on the old generations of MMOs, of which I'd prefer any of them to current and modern MMOs.
I also would submit that if gear is a measure of "progression" then you did something wrong or played to many theme parks/Wow.
The "holy trinity" is the biggest joke of all time when it comes to MMOs. As someone else stated already, there are many play styles and shoving them into 3 categories is a modern notion. Classes should be open and/or skill based, even classless, break free from the cookie-cutter trends.
If I was looking at a game my "Pillars" would look something like:
1) Leisure activities - Eventually I'm going to need a break from combat/grind/etc. What else does a game have that will keep my attention, keep me in the game, keep me interested in the game. This can range from crafting, gathering, social activities, housing, guild building, etc. IMO, this is the most underrated and important aspects of an MMO for the long term. These are the things that will keep people interested in the game past the grind.
2) Class/skill system - I can't deal with any more cookie-cutter trinity based class systems any more. Customization is high on my list. I think this should be more about creativity and skill and experimentation than balance or math. As far as I'm concerned you can throw balance right out the window, who cares if 1 thing is better than another, people will want to play how they want to play. Give them options, as many as possible, and they will adapt and experiment and find all sorts of interesting play styles, builds, etc. The more open ended and creative a system lets you get the better.
3) Combat - It is what it is, a clunky non-fun combat system will ruin a game especially with how much time you have to usually invest in it. Not a fan of button mashing, or games that require macros because their is so much going on. I like to move around, use terrain, etc. If I need 10 hotbars worth of junk on my screen then something else is wrong.
4) Sub-type - Lets face it, its an unfortunate realistic Pillar and very much personal opinion these days. Right off the top, "Pay to Win" is fail, worst of all of them, Micro-transactions are the worst thing I have seen. "Free to play" everyone would love free, but the reality is it lacks funding and support most times. "Buy to own" usually a money grab to get your cash 1 time from Devs, usually charging way to much for box prices. "Monthly Sub" lets face it, its the only way to keep Dev's honest, producing, caring about the product, and the game funded properly. Personally I'd rather just pay my monthly sub and be done with it, no cash stores, no micro transactions nickle and diming me to death, not having to buy new content, etc...just 1 monthly fee, everyone gets everything, same around the table even playing field. - Also, on a personal note, I am also sick of any $60 box fees for games now, paying $60 for a game sub or to own just to try it out, then realizing its just like any other game thats come out in the last 6 years is really dragging me down and starting to hate this genre.
5) Everything else, be it explore, story, etc, etc...
~I am Many~
I'm guessing the author of this article just made these pillars up? These pillars sound like they were invented from a player's perspective, instead of a designer's.
Every game design discussion I've heard when talking about pillars does not adhere to these. 'Time' isn't really a pillar (even if you want to invent it as one) as described in the article; as time is nothing more than another form of progression. Progression of the story, progression of the environment, progression of mechanics, etc. That is time.
However, if we were to talk about individual games, then time could be a pillar (and has been) for certain games. I.E. Prince of Persia heavily encorperated time as one of it's mechanics, and as a pillar of its gameplay.
What the author talks about at the end of the article, though, has been tried in multiple games. And it's been met with backlash from the player base. When players talk about things changing in an MMO over time, what they usually mean is a dynamic system in place to do so. When devs have tried to do that on manually, it gets conveyed as 'artificial' or 'a lie'.
- It is refreshing to see an article like this for a change, though. Instead of the usual seen on this site.
Well said.
Though again these are pillars coming from a Player perspective. And not a design one. Many of these come down to features, and features should never be a pillar when designing a game. No matter how good a feature is, one should always be prepared to scrap it for the game as a whole. Additionally features are much too narrow to be considered a pillar, and can be broadened to allow for much more flexibility.
For example, if we were to look at a game like WoW, one of it's pillars would be 'accessibility'. This influences everything from the art direction of the game, to the combat, to the characters.
If I was to make a game off your pillars, I would probably alter it in the following ways:
1) Leisure activities would be a 'feature' under the pillar of 'Social Gameplay' or 'Community-based'. Depending on how you prefer to phrase it. Leisure activities are part of this. And Social Gameplay involves everything from mini-games, to crafting, to trading on the market, or roleplaying. They're aspects of the game that tie you to other players and give you something more to do in the game than just learn the mechanics. It's all about interaction. Heck, this can even effect the combat, and we've seen it happen in other games (the Renkai system in FFXI, combo fields in GW2).
2) Class/Skill system can be changed to 'customization' / 'freedom of choice'. Which inturn directs your design away from linear / rigidly designed classes and into more free-form / customizable skillsets. This also doesn't have to be limited to the combat / class system, and can be applied to ALL aspects of gameplay.
3) Combat, in the way you described, can be looked at as 'ease of use' / 'polish' / 'accessibility'. And again, such philosophy doesn't need to be limited to one aspect of the game. Having systems that are smooth, accessible, yet also challenging can be applied to more than just the combat. This comes down to having high skill caps, while maintaining low barriers to entry. Which is a hallmark of good game design.
4) Sub-type (aka 'Business model'). Tbh, this should never be a pillar of game design. But it often becomes one. Because, at the end of the day, you need money to make a game. A game should be fun, regardless of its business model. And a game should not rely on its business model to be fun.
5) tbh, you don't need much else. You could make a pillar out of story / lore / exploration / etc. But the whole point of pillars to have simple, overarching themes / philosophies that influence the ENTIRE game. Not only does this serve as a baseline for how to create your game, but it also acts as a compass to ensure that you stay on the right track on your road to delivery. Having too many pillars is usually an easy way to ensure a game fails, as it gets far too difficult to maintain your original vision, especially once you start having to tread through all the gritty details.
The big reason is why we don't see much straying from "tradition" is that taking a chance means a greater risk of failure. With hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, no one wants to take risks. For every successful venture that breaks new ground there's a bunch of flops.
I think what we need is find the biggest expense in an MMO and prune it so that the games are cheaper and easier to make. Then, if it's successful, we can put the money back in. IMHO that big expense is graphics. You don't need photorealistic graphics in a good game, you need good gameplay. Graphics are just the icing on the cake. The problem is that too many people judge a game by graphics first and gameplay second. If we quit requiring good graphics in our MMOs then maybe companies will be more willing to experiment and be more niche.
Graphics in general, art assets including animations and advertising.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Innovation and creation has not been held back by copying old ideas it is because it is easier and safer to just keep going with the same trends.
Imo the Trinity design is flawless,it works,makes sense and does not hold back any creativity at all.FFXI was the game that proved it all someone had to do was come along and further deepen that design and improve it because it did have lots of room for improvement.
What i see instead is one current trend on fluctuating design and that is a sort of Eve copy,make a bunch of boxes and put check marks in them,i don't like that design at all.How can you even design your content if you don't know what type of characters are out there?You can't so again they play it safe by offering meaningless boxes to check,like 5% less time on timers that are already at 1-2 seconds lmao,so meaningless.Or put a check mark in and get 5 more damage but the creatures you fight have 5 more defense lol,yes again meaningless stuff.
I think the truth is that these are templates and that makes it VERY easy for as developer to make content and stats.Without a set template a developer has to go and create individual sub programs that makes it harder to keep it all in order without creating coding errors skipping from one to the next.
Bottom line is game development is ONLY about business now,do not expect any passion felt game designs anymore,it is too costly for a business to start making games really feel like Role playing games.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
But there are those like me who disagree with you on this point.
You believe in the Trinity and I don't. EVE has been growing steady for almost 11 years now without any need whatsoever for a trinity. Every character is their own tank, their own DPS and their own healer, the challenge is balancing your skills and your ship to do them well without sacrificing too much in any one area.
You see, without the Trinity and developer created content, the players are left to create the content. When you give the players the world and the tools to create their own reality, then conflict will inevitably develop and content will generate itself.
You don't see world first kills of any bosses showing up on the evening news. EVE has made the evening news many times, one occasion in particular when over $20,000 worth of comparable real money was lost in a single battle.
No one cares about that yawn worthy boss kill. It was developed by the developers to be killed. It's expected. Someone will kill it. But when you give the players the tools to create their own stories, it's news worthy and sometimes amazing to see what they will do with those worlds.
That's just my opinion, and why my pillars do not need a Trinity system in any way shape or form.
I've always thought the designers had it a bit wrong with the pillars and how they approach designing games and they don't map exactly, especialy in current implimentations to why many people play games. They have important holes in them...
Problem Solvers - These people play games because they enjoy thinking about and solving sort of puzzle that the game puts before them to solve. This could be combat....but in most MMO's combat and "killing" isn't much of a puzzle to solve... and it's distinctly different from either "killing" or "achieving" since it isn't the reward that the Problem Solver enjoys but the application of grey matter in trying to figure out the reward. It easly could be something that doesn't involve combat at all.
Cathartic Release - These people play games because the games offer them some sort of cathartic release. This could be about "killing" since there definately is something cathartic about smashing pixels after a tough day at the office. It could also be about flying or racing at break-neck speed....or simply experiencing some stunning visual effect.
Escapism/Immersion - These people play games as a way to take a break from the mundane and experience a world or setting that is completely new, different or fantastical. For them it isn't so much playing a game as being a part of a world. Story can be a part of this, but only if it is really able to draw the player into it sufficiently without making it feel forced or artificial in how the narrative flows. For people reading a novel or viewing a movies, linear isn't usualy a problem in this regards since the audience expects to be passive bystanders, no matter how much they might identify with a character there is no expectation that the character is "them", that they can have some sort of agency in controling the characters actions. This can break down in games where the player is cast in the role of, or even creates the character. That's where linear can generate big dissapointment in the audience.
Socializers - This is people who play for the social interaction with others, either positive or sometimes negative. The "killers" are sometimes where the negative comes into play for certain types of PKers, unfortunately. The positive can include RP-ers or just folks who like to interact with other players. The old style MUD's/MUSH's used to do a fairly good job at catering to these player types. Modern MMO's, seem to have largely forgotten about them.
Achievers - These are people who play because they like to achieve some reward or status in the game, be it levels, a new weapon, a spot on the leader board, a title/status, etc. This is the one area where modern MMO's seem to have really focused thier development on. I'd hazard that almost 95 percent of most MMO's development is concentrated on this type of play. It should come as no surprise to anyone that the people who play these MMO's are largely those who are heavly attracted to this type of play style. It's a self-fullfilling prophecy....if you build a menu focused entirely on provinding seafood, most of your customer base will be those who heavly favor seafood.
We need something new and bold.
Progression has always been the thing that makes me leave an MMO the most. I will not do dungeon X 100 times to get gear only to have to do it again in another dungeon for the next set of gear, that is dull boring gameplay. I should be doing that dungeon 100x because its fun and challenging and that's the only reason.
Make the game fun and you don't need a carrot on a stick to get people to do it repeatedly.
That's a nice theory, but in reality it tends to result in weak and uninteresting story. Any world needs a narrative framework in order to be interesting in the long term, gameplay by itself only goes so far. If players were capable of constructing and fleshing out that framework in a compelling way, that would be fantastic, but I am not aware of any sign that they have that capacity, or at least that they have that capacity with the tools available in the current generation of games. When your ability to create a narrative reality is limited to talking and emoting, it doesn't matter how good of a storyteller or roleplayer you are, your "content" isn't going to be anywhere near as good as what developers can put in the game.
It's possible that the storybricks system in EQN will move us in the direction of players being able to "create the story" simply by interacting with the world, but we aren't there yet. For now, we either get a traditional RPG style story in our MMOs, or we basically don't get one at all. Obviously people who are here more for the RPG than the MMO are going to prefer story remaining a pillar.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
So after a couple minutes checking google for the pillars of game design I came up with...
http://www.destinypedia.com/Seven_Pillars_of_Design
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/176917/The_4_pillars_of_making_a_truly_great_game_according_to_Insomniac.php
http://mrblueishmouvesky.hubpages.com/hub/The-Five-Pillars-of-Future-Online-Massively-Multiplayer-Browser-Based-Game-Design
(just search for yourself and you will find tons of different things on pillars of game design)
So among other things I realized that people are just pulling pillars out of thin air and I can come up with examples that don't have the pillars and are MMOs.
combat-
Any MMO that has crafting, socializing, or building as it's main focus doesn't even need combat or you can play some MMOs with out ever engaging in combat. Second Life, A Tale in the Desert, Star Wars Galaxies as a dancer/doctor/crafter.
progression-
There are many MMOs with very minimal progression. Some focus on horizontal progression or vertical progression or both and some offer payments to skip progression entirely.
exploration-
Many MMOs get rid of the world concept altogether and opt for a more lobby based dungeon running experience with very minimal exploration. Linear pathways abound in MMOs.
story-
Many MMOs have a lore or backstory but have no main story you would play through and let the players make their own stories via emergent gameplay.
There are no pillars of MMO game design there are only possible components that can be used to accomplish the goal. The goal being making a MMO. It's not about rethinking the pillars at all it's about realizing they are not pillars and are optional. Not every MMO needs combat, progression, exploration and story. In fact trying to meet a checklist like that and designing by using this pillar system seems like applying unnecessary restrictions.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/How many released MMOs can you name that completely leave out one of those "pillars" and are still successful?
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I would say that the pillars aren't necessarily completely wrong but I would agree that they need some tweeking. I think the genre needs to get away from making "games" and go back to making worlds.
As agent_Joseph posted, only the old school MMO's are pillars for me. Most of the recent games, like him, keep me for a month or two and then I am back to old school MMO's that feel more like real worlds than a game.
I think they feel this way because of some of the systems they DON'T give you compared to all the extra systems that have been implemented in current MMO's. I think over all, the genre needs to make more niche games, that go for a particular player base and then make pillars that are aimed for that particular player base.
Making a game that EVERYONE will enjoy is an extreme rarity, so making pillars that revolve around satisfying everyone will not work and the developers need to realize this and refocus their efforts, IMO.
Making a list for you is a waste of time. Go do some research on MMOs with no combat, progression, exploration or story. There are non-combat MMOs. There are MMOs with no progression or ones that you can just buy your progression. There are MMOs with no story. There are MMOs that are so linear you never get to explore. I could name dozens, possibly hundreds if all I have to do is leave only one of those pillars out. Story being the easy one because so many MMOs have no personal story and its a good thing because not every MMO needs a personal story or story at all.
Its not about what released with or without what pillar that was successful.
Its about not limiting the design of MMORPGs by placing a pillar system on them in the first place. I want creative freedom and inspired innovation not checklist MMO design with unnecessary restrictions.
The first step to rethinking the pillars is that a game does not need to have them.
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/