One of my starting assumptions about MMO design is that the player is looking at a screen that shows his character in a 3D virtual environment. The player uses that character to seamlessly visit each experience in the game. To craft, the player uses their character at a forge. To fight, the player uses their character near monsters. And so on. I recently decided to start exploring the what if exercise of departing from that assumption.
The prevailing mechanism has the problem of guiding all activities into the same mold. I see a character in a 3D environment, and I think a certain way. Characters in 3D environments do certain things, and those are the things I expect.
But what if you didn't see a 3D environment? What if you saw a web-based 2D flash application for crafting? What if there was an FPS game for one type of combat, a class/level system for another type of combat and a turn-based email game for yet a third type? All affecting in the same world.
Chaos, you say. Variety, I say. The FPS game happens in space. The class combat happens on the ground. The turn-based combat influences the political game that spans whole planets. The crafting game affects only individual items used by any of those other systems. The systems don't necessarily interact directly, which dovetails with what I was talking about in Designing Roles for MMO Characters.
Why do all this? Because different players enjoy different things, and what they enjoy can interrelate in ways that provide greater entertainment for everyone concerned if they aren't forced to use the exact same user experience.
I'm back to playing EVE Online, which is a game that caters to different types of players intent on different activities. Yet there is constant leak-through where one system impacts another even though the players of the respective systems aren't interested in those interactions. It makes no sense to create a single user experience that is a vast compromise across the spectrum of player agendas when an isolated treatment of each is what players would really like to have. When systems are most entertaining while intertwined, intertwine them. When most entertaining while separate, separate them.
Note that switching between games doesn't require character travel, which is a long-time gripe of mine. If I'm in the middle of combat and decided to do some crafting, I can just close down the combat side and switch over to the crafting side. Or do both at the same time, for that matter. I switch from a FPS experience to a 2D flash experience - or however the crafting game wants to be structured.
Different people have different temperaments, different schedules and even different game devices. Is there any reason why players of a game shouldn't be able to play through their cell phone and affect the exact same game world that others are playing through their virtual reality rooms? The cell phone guy may only be able to place a sell order on something that he owns, while the guy with the virtual reality room can get an adrenaline rush from combat or do complex design tasks, but they'd be affecting the same virtual environment.
As you advance your own designs, think about how your game can have many faces for many different people. Don't assume that all your players have to be interested in killing monsters and gaining levels. Make that only one bit of the entertainment juggernaut that you can assemble. Look at an activity that you're going to put into your game and then figure out the ideal interface for the people who enjoy doing that thing. Take everything into account, including how long they'd want to be actively involved in the game per session (10 seconds? 10 hours?), where they are likely to play it, whether they're likely to play by themselves or with friends present (thank you, Jimmy_Scythe), whether they want mental or physical exercise (q.v. the Wii) and many more factors. Let the consequences of their games affect each other without the way they play the games affect each other.
This is just my opinion, but I do think that we will see more games like this in the future. Take a look at metaplace and imagine the possibilities there (if they ever finish it...).
Anway, this really does tie into the idea of having different roles for different players. Personally, I think theres tons of potential there for MMOs to bring in even more gamers and non-gamers. Of course, this would go completely against of the current trend of narrowly focused MMOs...which is a very good thing in my opinion.
Mon May 19 2008 8:33PMWell we need to go back to your good work on "Different Flocks Collide"
Point A I want to make:
There are players, like me, that enjoy pretty much every aspect of a game like EVE. So I love how Crafting and Trading and PVP and politics are all intricately interwoven to create a seamless experience
And yet- I can see sense to your post. Being able to PVP and get what I want purely from that is a fun proposition as well. So I hope EVE will add that on in next expansion
Point B:
"Is there any reason why players of a game shouldn't be able to play through their cell phone and affect the exact same game world that others are playing through their virtual reality rooms? "
Yep good idea. the only problem with those types of games that I can forsee it kind of stops being a "Game" when we have to worry about it at work, school, etc. I find it kind of troublesome I have to watch EVEMon at home and get online to switch my skill (time based training).
But i agree I think thats good idea. Let some players play from Flash, let others play from cell phone, and others play from a high performance client and do the PVP portion
Many interesting ideas come to mind there
Yep, yep good post
Mon May 19 2008 11:09PM"Yet there is constant leak-through where one system impacts another even though the players of the respective systems aren't interested in those interactions. It makes no sense to create a single user experience that is a vast compromise across the spectrum of player agendas when an isolated treatment of each is what players would really like to have."
I would like clarification here. can you give a concrete example?
I think they are trying to get a player dependency going. That is why crafting, research, trading, hauling, mission running, and PVP are all interwoven
IF they are not interwoven, then there is a breakdown in player dependency. If there is no player dependency, then I dont need a Guild. I will just look at for myself and Solo through entire game. Perhaps cancel subscription a bit faster, because I dont have other players that depend on me
Mon May 19 2008 11:14PMvajuras: "Yep good idea. the only problem with those types of games that I can forsee it kind of stops being a "Game" when we have to worry about it at work, school, etc. I find it kind of troublesome I have to watch EVEMon at home and get online to switch my skill (time based training)."
Easy access to a game does not require that it be designed such that it compels customers to play it. This is part of my problem with the wholistic virtual world; players do fell compelled to play in order to keep up or ensure that they will be able to access the entertainment that they seek (e.g. it only appears under certain circumstances).
A turn-based political game would be ideal for cell phones, for example. That doesn't mean that you have to check your cell phone no matter where you are, but rather that you can check your cell phone when you are ready to play.
vajuras: "I would like clarification here. can you give a concrete example?"
In EVE Online, there is the notion of high security space. In it, pilots can move about without fear of attack. Except that they can still be attacked at random if another pilot is willing to commit suicide. This is leak-through from the PvP system to all of the Empire-centric systems that carebears enjoy. A freighter pilot being suicided in a 1.0 security system is one of the more egregious forms of leak-through.
How about the leak-through of magic in fantasy? Because the world is magical, there are spells. Those spells turn out to be powerful. To address that power, normally mundane systems - such as warriors in armor - have to be magical too. They need magical weapons. But those magical weapons are so powerful that they need magical armor to stand up to them. Then more and more magical abilities until nothing is mundane anymore.
The first example is PvP leak-through because the game is "about" PvP. The second example is magic leak-through because the game "about" magic.
vajuras: "IF they are not interwoven, then there is a breakdown in player dependency."
They can be interwoven without using the same game mechanism. Imagine not having a World of Warcraft character, but being able to chat with with characters in World of Warcraft using an IM program. Or being able to craft items that get placed into the NPC merchants' inventories - all without having a character. I just play the crafting game using materials supplied by Blizzard so that everything the player characters need for adventuring is always available. I don't need to be an adventurer to do that.
Tue May 20 2008 1:48PMMMORPG.com writes:
Login or Register to post a comment