MMOs Must. Be. Fun. OR ELSE!

28Jun10

A response to Anti-Aliased which argues, in short, that MMOs should not wait until one reaches a certain point in order to bestow their greatness, they should be good right from the get go. Something that actually, despite the response, I agree with completely. I think that new games do a poor job of showing the actual game to a new player. For example if your game involves weaving multiple skills together in a group in order to achieve a result, having players start with one skill and no chains until level 20 does not make levels 1-19 any good.

RPGs, by their nature, are about personal investment.

MMORPGs were, as a result, about time investment and group play.

MMOs (I’d argue WoW was the first) are about the game.

This article is a really good argument that games should be fun first and an investment second. Or at the very least, they should be inextricably partnered. We’ve reached a point that poor gameplay cannot be made up for by depth and breadth of content, and I say that as an avid 6+ year player of FFXI. However, I think there is a very valid fear that the entitlement argument swiftly follows ensuring that a game is fun at all levels.

Players don’t deserve the best gear, the most fun content, the coolest abilities, the flashiest effects, at level 1. Or even level 10, or 20. RPGs are about story arcs, and any character that people talk about has their own, how they reached a certain level, got a certain item, or achieved a certain goal. There is no good story without personal investment (or else, why tell it!)

I think there’s a middle ground here. It probably revolves more around gameplay than for example what I understand AoC did (have the beginning of the game be a single player experience and then dump you into the MMO grindfest or gankfest or whatever) and doesn’t really have to involve innovation. WoW should be a shining example that new isn’t always better, as its popularity is unmatched.

I did find the discussion here about reviewers interesting. Perhaps it is of interest to those writing these articles, but as a long time player my experience is that no reviewer can explain to me the merits of an MMO after playing it for 20 hours, or 5 weeks, or whatever arbitrary time limit they operate within. They can simply impart an impression of the game that they played. I hope games aren’t built around this artificial requirement either, that investing a relatively short amount of time is all that is necessary to understand the game and report on it. That is not to say that the reverse of the entitlement argument should be allowed, that is, to hide all manner of sin behind an epic endgame, but MMOs are NOT adventure games. They can’t please everyone all the time, and yes, sometimes, they can be dull. Sometimes they are repetitive, grindy, and feel like a treadmill or climbing a mountain, but sometimes that is necessary to create value from virtual goals. MMOs are a novel, or a series of novels, not a two hour movie.

In the age of instant gratification, a massive sense of entitlement, and micro-achievements so small I’m constantly surprised I don’t see a sprite beside me with a sign saying “Congrats!” each time I wake up in the morning (…though that’d be awesome), MMOs give us as players an opportunity to work towards achievable goals. To rise above those who choose not to continue, because the opportunity cost is simply too high. That is what created the original elite, the people that players could aspire to be when they saw them floating around town on flying carpets and wielding giant flaming swords. That is what is missing from some current MMOs (Warcraft certainly, with its everything is achievable attitude) and it’s what I hope comes around again.

Logging into a game does not mean a player must complete it, and paying $15 a month does not mean a player deserves to master it. I hope that balance exists in this generation of MMOs.

Advertisement

Filed under: Forum Posts, MMOs   |  Leave a Comment