Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Objective and Subjective Mmo Philosophies
Eronakis
Member UncommonPosts: 2,248
I would like to state that you can look at what makes a good mmo on two sides of the coin. Is mmo design an Objective standard or a Subjective standard?
I have seen a lot of threads on here about what players opinions on what makes good game design. Here are some generalized examples of what I've complied over the last couple of weeks...
"If the game is not like WoW, easy and accessible, it's bad game design"
"If the game does not focus on challenge and community, it's bad game design"
"If the game is a themepark style mmo, its bad game design"
"If the game is a sandbox style mmo, its bad game design"
"If there is an icon above the NPC for quests, its bad game design"
"If you have to camp with a group in one to two spots for 3+ hours it's bad game design"
From this sample, one can conclude that all of these are all difference in taste. You can argue why each of those stances are good or bad game design mechanics/philosophies.
Objective Standpoint
One could argue that there is a certain standard in which mmo games need to be designed to fullfill player enjoyment. There is a vast array of avanues that you can compartmentalize into one objective standard for mmo design. What design aspect do is the standard to recognize as the standard? Is it, themepark vs. sandbox? Is it challenge vs. no challenge? Is it open seamless exploration vs. que time and instances? I don't believe you can compartmentalize different aspects for an Objective standard of mmo game design.
For an objective standard, I think that you have to categorize the style of design. Not each aspect of design. Here are some styles of mmo design.
-PVE or PVP
-Themepark or Sandbox
I should also mention that the theme of the game has nothing to do with this matter.
There are many different mechanics and philosophies that a designer can take into consideration when choosing their style of mmo. The Objective standpoint initiates the conversation of there is a set standard. If there is a set standard, I would have to assume you'd measure it by what came out first as well as sales. Both has to complement each other. I am going with the themepark approach becuase I am more familar with it versus sandbox. Sorry UO fans. So the question is, for the themepark style of mmo design, Everquest or World of Warcraft? Which one is the standard? Everquest was the first themepark and World of Warcraft captured gamers outside of the original mmo market to dominate sales. So which is the objective standard?
Why do you have to consider number of sales and who designed it first matter? Sales would conclude the revenue return in which the investors would make back, making it a successful title by sales only. Everquest is the origin of a themepark game. The guy who designed basketball set the standard for that particular sport. Why? Because that designer came up with the initial idea. The game is still being played by it's roots when it was first designed. However, the core mechanics of basketball hasn't changed, just the rule sets. Technically, they set the standard so Wow could capitolize on EQ's flaws, thus making the game easier so a casual crowd can enjoy it more. Wow can't be WoW without EQ in that sense. Seems as if if you take both, origin and sales both titles has conflicting interests.
Subjective Standpoint
This sections soley falls under the what the individual player enjoys. This means, there is no objective standard in which what game design philosophy is superior to another. Themepark vs sandbox, pve vs pvp, icon over npc heads for quest objectives ect are all subjective things in which the player can cherry pick of which they like.
With this in mind, there is no right or wrong way of designing an mmo. The only way to establish that is by the players who play that title in which provides that particular game design philosophy. If a game conflicts against your interests of a certian philosophy of design, that is neither nor bad or good design. Because there is no objective standard. I don't think this section needs more meat to the bone because its rather self explanitory.
Which is the correct standpoint? Objective or Subjective?
It's actually both. However, I think the subjective standpoint has more weight. The objective standpoint allows a more diverse possibility of different designs. Thus, the genre should be a genre of niche gaming. Right now, because of sales only, WoW is the industry standard. Wow is the "objective" standpoint. But that doesn't negate the fact of the objective standard being the correct standard. And if titles don't follow that standard is wrong. That is not the case at all. I think universally its subjective, but objective within each niche market. For an example, the EQ folk want an mmo that is a world in which is challenging and focuses on a strong community. The Wow folk want a game where they can min and max everything being the best of the best by items obtained, generally speaking. I don't think the EQ niche would want the easyness of Wow as their philosophy of design, eventhough, both are themepark games.
So in conclusion, game design philophies is subjective and there is no right or wrong way of doing it as a whole. It's objective when you delve deeper into the design of niche gaming.
I apologize if this wasn't that coherent. I wanted to post this for a while. I keep on forgetting to post this topic. The room I was in was loud and it was rather difficult to consentrate.
Comments
A well written piece. Thank you.
For the vast majority of games, poor accessibility is poor game design. But:
Accessibility means easy to learn; it doesn't mean easy to master. Huge difference.
Secondly, being accessible like WOW doesn't mean being like WOW. Again, huge difference. Plenty of accessible games are completely different from WOW (most, actually.)
For the other comments, you're partially right and partially wrong.
"Bad design" in a general sense is fairly quantifiable. Certain traits very obviously cause a game to be more or less fun to the general public.
But motorized wheelchairs -- while useless to 99% of the general public -- nevertheless are extremely desirable designs for the niche audience they're designed for.
Most of the comments you quoted sort of hit upon both of the above concepts, with people pointing out that a design is bad because it doesn't have wide appeal, or that a design is bad because it doesn't appeal to some specific niche (which, to be honest, is a lot sillier...it'd be like a physically handicapped person complaining about the design of a typical car and how inaccessible it is.)
Many of my own posts are probably guilty of the former (calling game designs bad because most people wouldn't find them fun.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Having accessibility has nothing to do with game design. It has everything to do with, what type of engine you use, do you use a high poly count on models, how much server lag do you have with animations and everytthing going on between player input and server lag. Also, how many special effects, special lighting with shaders are all rendered at the same time. More higher poly models besides characters, such as grass textures and rocks ect can also make a game not as accessible. That has nothing to do with game design. Game design is the design of features, mechanics, level, character, lore ect with player input.
Thanks for admitting that. Like I said. I think EQ is a better designed game than WOW but yet you disagree. Does that mean universally, EQ is a better designed game that WoW? Absolutely not. Its a subjective standpoint. Like you said, just because we are in disagreement doesnt mean my style is better designed than yours. It's not. A lot of people on this forum doesn't understand game design. So its a common misconception.
Ah, well the term typically used is Usability. I was bending accessibility (which I've heard interchangably used with usability) to fit that meaning.
Usability has a lot to do with game design.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Well the term is still vague heh. Can you elaborate on which game design avanues that should have the best usability?
The vague version is usability is how "usable" a product (such as a game) is.
The short version is usability is how well the game teaches the player how to enjoy it.
The long version is it's things like tutorials, UI layout/messaging, and feature progression which cause players to understand the game. (Feature progression being my poor term for how games gradually unlock their features to you. In MMORPGs this is how your character gradually gains new abilities at a certain rate, hopefully giving you the right amount of time to learn how to correctly use them without overloading you.) It includes a ton of little stuff, but UI and tutorials are the big things which allow a software product to be as usable as possible.
And well, game design entirely figures into this as well. An example being that WOW's abilities are mostly distinct from one another with only limited functionality overlap, whereas my WAR characters (and EQ2 too) had a mess of abilities which were nearly identical in function. So it was a lot of complexity that didn't really add depth, which resulted in these games being less fun.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I know you're a wow homer Axe, but I don't see how Wow does it better than other mmos in the usability category? I would only assume that very complex combat mechanics or class design would negate the usability your talking about. I haven't seen any mmo's out yet that would overload or give players an ample amount of time to learn.
Well written. I completely agree with you about the subjective vs the objective.
I do have a question. As far as design goes how does the dumbing down trend fit in to the paradigm?
I would assume there are several factors of why the dumbing down fits into a lot of the new age mmos. I'll compile a list.
- World of Warcraft has a huge part of this because of its successful revenue they bring in. After that boom of cash flowing into the industry, investors and publishers big eyes for dollar signs. Integrity and passion is being clouded by the potential profit they could bring in. So the need to copy WoW's success plays a factor in dumbing down of new age mmos.
- Since the success of WoW and its casual friendly gameplay, many companies try to capture some of that casual crowd. So famiarity with the easyness of Wow is being copied to bring in subscriptions. Some mechanics that would be considered in the casual friendly are, UI, icons above NPC's for easy access of quests, linear combat, no class ability strategy (just spamming abilities in a timed rotation), very basic mob AI that complements the holy trinity class strategem vs. PC, lack of dangerious world with the use of instances, amoung others. You should get the general idea.
- This genre was niche gaming before 2004. WoW helped bring in non mmo players before into the industry. This saturated the genre with players who only knew the casual design of mmo gaming. Thus, that market is grown and again the investors are trying to capture that market.
- Unfortunately, money is still the issue in some cases. Lack of budget and time can be a deciding factor into how casual or hardcore the game will be. The more complex the game mechanics are, the more time it will take to implement; due to extented testing, which also takes more money. I think a major reason why we see the lack of intelligent AI is due to the tremedious server lag. Also, more complex designs would require more of a hardware upgrade in the graphics and processor department. Due to the onscreen rendering that takes place. Another factor, is probably the lack of technology if one is looking for new innovative gameplay. I know for my ideas, I am not sure if the technology is out yet to complement them.
All in all, it all comes down to time and revenue. I think there are several ways to negate the lack of budget to diminish the lack of dumbdown content such as, more environmental hazards (like traps and triggered events), a stricter death penalty, limit the use of abilities for one hot bar, dim down a lot of the new content and go back to specific class roles (if the game style is indeed themepark). Challenging group content can also help because you're survival is soley dependent on others. All of these I have listed came from traditional mmorpg game design. Those philosophies are being pushed out the door. That is another reason why you're seeing dumb down content. I really think to capture the traditional philosophies of game design and the new age game design is to have innovative combat and intelligent AI.
Sorry for the novel. I hope this answers your question.
Many other MMOs do have great usability. But others use a combination of unnecessarily complex mechanics, weak UI, and poor explanation that hampers their potential audience. But with all the MMORPGs that came out after WOW, they've latched on to many of the ways WOW makes itself easier to use. Simply having great usability obviously isn't enough on its own to make a wildly successful game, but it's one less barrier to entry.
Also, WOW itself isn't the pinnacle of usability. Though they've taken some good steps in that regard with the latest expansion, every game can stand to make its mechanics more understandable to players.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I think here is the perfect example of the Subjective standpoint. Again, if WoW or some mmos make gameplay "handholding" consititutes good design that is solely your personal preference. I would rather have a game where, they give me the jist of gameplay and then let me figure out what I can and can't do. I think figuring out different combos for combat or whatever on your own is more rewarding. We both like opposite sides of the spectrum for mmos. I'd rather have challenge and you'd rather have everything easy to figure out. And a lot of people see that has a bad thing. I just believe the style of play I enjoy creates better players overall. But you can enjoy what you like and there is nothing wrong with that. This is why the mmo genre needs to go back to niche gaming. Each niche would have their own community. Diversity ftw!
An interesting design would be a system which is simple to learn, yet difficult to master.
I preffer giving the player the building blocks to see what the heck is going on and the offer him more advanced content if he looks for it after getting sick of the easy places.
As logn as a game "entertains" it is a good design, but every game gets old after a while no matter how good it is.
Thank you for taking the time.
Challenge is exactly what I want. But I want the game itself to be the fun, interesting challenge. I don't want the challenge to revolve around getting to the gameplay. I want the challenge to be the gameplay.
When I buy a puzzle box I want the puzzle to be fun. I won't appreciate if it comes in that evil impossible to open plastic, inside a crate which requires 10 mins of crowbar action. All that extra crap isn't the challenge I purchased. It's just badly designed packaging.
Games shouldn't be like that. Figuring out combos for combat is interacting directly with the game itself, whereas figuring out where to go for a quest is a pretty shallow experience in the poorly designed types of games that don't provide good communication. It's badly designed packaging.
Even the players who've become subjectively fond of bad packaging would almost certainly be that much happier if the product itself improves. Although I suppose the state they're in now is that the packaging has improved but the product relatively unchanged. But I think the real problem is these players keep asking for the packaging to be shitty again, rather than asking for a better product.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver