Raph's Website » What is your ideal MMO?





By N2H

blog · games · writing · music · art · shop · about Raph · contact

What is your ideal MMO?

February 27th, 2006 (Visited 15095 times) Tags:

The discussions on the lessons make me curious.

What is it you want? Not in terms of exhaustive mechanics, specific and highly detailed setting information, and so on, but the spirit of it.

(Not that I think you’re necessarily a representative bunch…!)

[?]
Type in a relevant tag, and click the button, and help organize this blog's information.
[More Help]

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

100 Responses to “What is your ideal MMO?”

Jump to reader comments » | Leave a reply »

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Man Bytes Blog: A Frenzy of Lexicological Optimism » The Ideal MMO? wrote on February 28th, 2006 at 4:22 am:

[...] (link: What is your ideal MMO?) Tossed into: Design Things — by Corvus @ 7:18 am [...]

RF Online... wrote on February 28th, 2006 at 10:25 am:

[...] Quote from: MightyAl on Today at 11:23:39 AM(…)http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/24/what-are-the-lessons-of-mmorpgs-today/Quite sad, isnt it?I read that a couple of nights ago.Most noteworthy things IMHO:- People are only good at one thing.- You never, ever, ever change jobs. If you want to, you probably need to die.- You can be the best in the world at your job (But so can everyone else).- Killing is the only real way to gain people�s admiration (Well, you can make stuff too, but you won�t earn the same kind of admiration).- There are no such things as social progress or technological advancement.- You should not associate with those of lower social standing than yourself.- You can�t be in two places at once. But places can be in two places at once. (Ok, this one is not bad, but funny )- Actually, in general, taking your time is counterproductive.Im not gonna talk about SWG here since I doubt Mr. Koster is doing any concrete design jobs anymore, Ill just note that in pre-CU SWG the above statements held less truth than they do in the NGE.He made a follow-up, btw. How did haxal (Oropher) end up there? [...]

Outside Looking In wrote on March 1st, 2006 at 7:12 am:

most interesting to me. It tells a story based around the idea of a MMO minigame that’s an abstract simulation of sex, and why players would/could use it. (Here.) It even rewards monogamy. Raph Koster recently asked people what they wanted in an MMO. (Here.) Well, more accurately, what was the spirit of what they wanted? My answer to Raph was:I want an MMO where: (a)any single player can effect meaningful change in the world around him, (b)player skill (items/effects excepted) is what matters and not

darkworldlight blog » Blog Archive » Why I Dislike Levels in MMOs wrote on March 1st, 2006 at 8:43 am:

[...] Raph Koster posted the question ‘What is your ideal MMO’ on his blog, which is really opening up a can of worms; however some of the responses echoed the idea of removing character levels from MMOs: [...]

Utopian Hell wrote on March 1st, 2006 at 7:57 pm:

[...] Raph’s got up a question for everyone about what their ideal MMO is. I’m rather amazed to find a great many people responding that they want more forced socialization opportunities – that the strength of MMOs is that they offer people a chance to socialize. [...]

Faith wrote on March 2nd, 2006 at 10:36 am:

[...] Comments [...]

Sierra Kilo » Blog Archive » You asked for it… wrote on March 2nd, 2006 at 12:17 pm:

[...] http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/27/what-is-your-ideal-mmo/ [...]

Raph’s Website » Monthly Report: February 2006 wrote on March 2nd, 2006 at 9:59 pm:

[...] What is your ideal MMO? [...]

Odds, Ends at Outside Looking In wrote on April 11th, 2006 at 3:50 pm:

[...] Raph Koster recently asked people what they wanted in an MMO. (Here.) Well, more accurately, what was the spirit of what they wanted? My answer to Raph was: I want an MMO where: (a)any single player can effect meaningful change in the world around him, (b)player skill (items/effects excepted) is what matters and not time spent in the world doing any repetitive task. (c)a world that would be interesting even with no players. If Days of Our Lives can go for this long and still have viewers interested, I fail to see why an MMO canÂt change the story a tad bit every week/month in a player-participatory fashion. (Not just a static story with additional events tagged on with larger events happening in expansions.) [...]

This site has suggestion made on how people want MMOs made wrote on July 20th, 2008 at 2:16 pm:

[...] http://www.raphkoster.com/2006/02/27/what-is-your-ideal-mmo/l'm not advertising, take the thread down if u find a reason to [...]

Reader Comments

MikeRozak said on February 27th, 2006 at 11:18 pm:
What is your ideal movie? Your ideal book?

I don’t want an ideal; I want variety so that when I get bored of one genre/style, I can move on to something completely different.

At one point in time, all literature in Western Europe had to be about Greek gods or heros. Then came Geoffry Chaucer, who wrote a compendium of short stories about average folk. (Or that’s my take on it. Those more versed in English literature may know otherwise.)

Why are (almost) all MMORPGs about combat and characters getting more powerful/wealthy (a pale immitation of the hero’s journey)?
Snuzzlebunny said on February 27th, 2006 at 11:23 pm:
Simple: something that actually requires skill. PvP in Guild Wars comes close but still feels a bit too loose to me. Also, there’s the whole thing about GW not really being an MMO since almost everything is instanced.
Damien Neil said on February 27th, 2006 at 11:55 pm:
- Everyone plays together. No levels, no radical differences in power. A newbie who first logged in an hour ago can productively play with anyone in the game. (A Tale in the Desert has this in spades: The only real power there is knowledge and social networks.)

- No grind. Progression, yes, but player time is not tied to advancement. If you need to control the rate at which players advance, limit them to a certain number of actions per day or allow activities to take place offline. (ATITD fails utterly at this, which is why I no longer play.)

- A mutable world. Let players build and break things.

- Social architecture. Put too many people in one social space, and it becomes hard to develop social bonds–you never see the same person twice. Put too few people in the space, and the game becomes bland. I want to see multiple overlapping levels of social organization: Familial structures to tie friends together, guilds to connect common actors, towns or cities to place diverse individuals in the same social space, and nations to link otherwise unrelated communities.

- No artificial constraints. Let someone be a fighter, a tracker, a healer, and a crafter without creating multiple characters. If you want to create group dynamics based on different roles, let people swap out mutually-exclusive roles at will. When five friends get together to do something, they shouldn’t be blocked by character class decisions made months ago.
Oropher said on February 28th, 2006 at 12:03 am:
Here is my ideal mmo :

A crafting / vendor / entertaining system like SWG.

A game based on possesion. Player cities like in SWG. And bases / strongholds that can be placed in those cities only. A city should declare its faction or choose to stay neutral. Ability to build walls around cities, and destroy them by raiding. In summary, a pvp system based on mass raids.

A levelling system like in wow, interesting and fun, but let’s say takes 1/3 of the time.

A dungeon system like in wow. 5 men, 10 men, 20 men, 40 men instances. Server-wide efforts needed to unlock some of them.

An alpha class that fight among each other with death penalty, like Jedi in SWG. This class should be alpha, but with death penalties and hard to achieve and survive. This is the ‘hardcore’ level for very skilled players. And this class fight among each other, not the regular players.

Ability to create ‘Better races’. You start the game. After 3 months you start the game, you can marry a female. After 3 months, you can have a child. This child will be a playable character in 6 months. But with more skill points / racial advantages than the original, etc., and carry the same surname of the father. Then the cycle goes on.
Excavius said on February 28th, 2006 at 1:53 am:
No leveling system.
A system of justice enforced and regulated by players. (no outside pvp rules)
Some place where the world is capable of change based on players rather then being completely static. (200 players cast la siege spell.. boom to mountain)
a system where players are born to the world. not just “poofing” out of space. (aka family system)
A place where if a enemy dies you dont just see another appear out of thin air to replace it in 15 minutes. Dead = Dead. Complete removal of a monster type is possible.
A ingame event staff for important characters within the back story.
Quests are not something that is done by NPCs but chosen by players for other players to complete.
A place where death isnt meaningless. Where death can be cruel. Item loss to Perma Death even.
A world that supports people who like to create things like books, paintings, and even play a game of chess. (ala uo)

All in all I want a mmo that is more like a virtual living world. Where players are able to do a vast range of things even if it is to start a “zoo” or make a 50 floor tower filled with gold golems. A place that is something you could just walk around in and explore. A place that people are satisfied even if they do not have the best gear or biggest house. Something along the lines of Aragorn from LotR. To be content. Lastly a place where there is no contact with the outside world. 0 ebay, 0 lvling services, 0 sweatshop companies.

Yes I aim high but thats my ideal world. It may sound odd but combat isnt everything. Both sides of the coin need to be revealed in order to create a balance. As well as the need for penalties in order to create a higher sense of joy. Im sure this isnt for everyone tho in the gaming world.
Martin G. said on February 28th, 2006 at 3:45 am:
In order to attack the “Pale hero’s journey” problem, why not let players take the roles of NPC’s. This could be a way to avoid the problem of everyone being the same and having the same items and stories at the end of the journey. It would of course demand a large work load on the designers, but I merely suggest that a few select players would be able to be a part of shaping the world. Maybe such a world could be divided into chapters like in Guildwars or even be a kind of ongoing soap like Chris Klug has suggested. Effectively, making all the NPC’s into PC’s would be impossible, but if a few key positions were reserved for players to take over I think it would give an incentive to keep on playing the game. One could imagine then that these characters would be required to take on the “burden” of permadeath (this would also make it possible to discard players who fulfilled the role badly), but at the same time be able to earn a place in history. It should be possible to take over their parts through an array of different means, i.e. assasination, political, inheritance, war etc..
Wilfried said on February 28th, 2006 at 4:47 am:
Sadly I have no link to it, but there was once a very good posting on “what players want” on the Star Wars Galaxies forum. It sums up to something like “live in the star wars universe and be a hero”.

The three most important points for me are:

- Premise
- Conflict
- Immersion

I haven’t realy cared for mechanics back when I played pen & paper RPGs and I still don’t. Most content works with any mechanic in PnP, as it does with any MMO.

So what I do is constantly ask myself with whatever I’m currently working on:

- Do I still meet my premise?
- Do I have a strong conflict?
- Does it add to the immersion?

If you ask 1000 players what they like, you’ll get 1001 different opinions about mechanics, what is constant are the said three points.

So my ideal MMO would give the players every freedom of choices possible, and deliver on all three points with all choices.
Stefan Hayden said on February 28th, 2006 at 4:57 am:
I just want to play with my friend and I want to be able to skip a week of playing with out haveing to play catch-up.
Grax said on February 28th, 2006 at 5:04 am:
Excavius’s world sounds good. He’s aiming high but most or all of what he wants can be done today, it’s a question of volition/funding as usual.

MMOGs can be whatever their designers want them to be. Some designers want their MMOGs to be crap, and some players want to play crap MMOGs. There are also designers who want to make exceptional MMOGs that show how interactive, immersive, player-driven, and fascinating an MMOG can be, and there are (enough) players who want to exist in that type of virtual world.

The whole “everyone pays 15 bucks a month” thing is probably not helping the situation, though — if you want a higher quality world, you’ll probably have to pay for that quality. Others have observed this but it’s worth repeating.
Lizard said on February 28th, 2006 at 6:11 am:
A true world which works on many levels.

The ‘perfect’ RPG for me would have the PVE/adventuring depth of WoW or EQ, the community/homebuilding/economic depth of early SWG, and the player control and development of EVE Online. It should have a rich world and background lore, and player knowledge of this lore should matter. It should have NO cookie cutter or ‘flavor of the week’ characters; there should be hundreds, or thousands, of ‘optimal’ builds. It should be strictly enforced Single Character per Server. It should be designed so that it is not necessary to be part of an ‘uber guild’ to see all the world; to use one of Raph’s other comments, one man — or at least a small band of loyal friends — should be able to slay a dragon.

There should be no ‘end game’. I *despise* the idea that ‘the game doesn’t really begin until you hit the level cap’, and I always have. Ideally, there is no ‘level cap’ (or skill point cap or experience cap or whatever). If this is technologically infeasible, then, make it so hitting the final tier is very difficult and cannot be done my macroing/grinding/following a formula. When you do max out, you basically ‘retire’ from the game; your character becomes a figure in a ‘Palace Of The Gods’, something for other players to revere. You have ‘won’, in other words. Perhaps you gain the ability to craft a demi-plane/instance/zone which others can visit. (A lot of MUDS worked like this, I believe)

In terms of more specific mechanics, I’d like:

Clothing to matter. Each item of clothing has a ’style’ value (noble, merchant, criminal, etc), and how you’re dressed impacts your dealing with NPCs. You don’t visit the Queen of England in a torn t-shirt, and you don’t meet with a gang leader while wearing a tuxedo, after all. (I’d also like an instant civilian clothes/fighting clothes switch)

Truly unique items/encounters/skills. Currently, most games have everyone running around with the One Ring, Excalibur, and the Horn of Roland.

A crafting system which is more based on laws of physics which can be discovered than on ‘click and combine’. I’m thinking of the beetles in ATID.

Content creation tools that don’t unbalance or destroy the game. Why can’t a wizard research a truly new spell? Or a bard create a song? Or a blacksmith model a sword using a 3-d editor?

A reason to stay home, and a reason to leave home.

A sense that your character is alive when you aren’t there. If you log off in the rain, when you log back in, your character has dramatically reduced hit points and morale because he’s been sleeping outside for days!

Interactive social animations. I want to kiss, hug, slap, and actually intersect my target.

Make standing/faction with the NPCs as important as guilds and PCs. If you’ve created a world with rich lore and ancient organizations, factions, and cults, make belonging to them rewarding mechanically and emotionally.

“world Events” which are more than “Oh, cool, there’s a zillion dragons destroying all the major cities. Again.”

Player-editable animations and sound emotes.

A very strict “No assholes” policy. Use the ban hammer heavily.

A true role-playing intensive server.

A world large enough that there’s always places to explore, without it being endless random terrain, ala too much of SWG. Imagine worlds the size of each SWG world, but with the kind of detail and life of the zones of WoW or EQ. Or something like EVE Online, but with every star system feeling truly unique and individual.

Something very much like true tabletop gaming, where a group of 4 to 8 players can queue up for a live GM who will give them his sole attention for a 4-6 hours, running them through a scenario where is playing the NPCs, spawning the monsters, etc.

A world where everything that exists is ‘real’ — if I pick up a plate, I can hit someone with it, do some damage, and possibly have the plate shatter to shards. Then I pick up the shards.

Realistic weight and mass — how does a backpack hold 10 iron breastplates?

A game where the lower levels aren’t zipped through in an hour. Make each ‘ding’ an event.

More tactical choices in combat, so that player knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of various creatures matters. No more generic attack sequences which work against everything.

Some means of eliminating twinking, gold farming, character selling, etc.

A game which is its own OS and has to be booted from CD/DVD, so that there’s no way to install third-party programs that make many game elements impossible. (i.e, some games have no stealth or invisibility because third-pary cheats show all ‘hidden’ figures.)

Real-world legal action take against people who exploit bugs. (”Dupe fake gold;pay real fines.”)
Vargen said on February 28th, 2006 at 6:27 am:
I want two different online games. The first thing I want is what many people want: a theme-park like experience that leads you through well-designed static content created to evoke a particular experience. I guess sort of like a single-player game, only it’s really big and you can play cooperatively with friends. WoW would be close to perfect for this kind of game if it didn’t have a nasty habit of dividing my guild into little pieces with its level requirements. Current industry trends are already well on their way to serving this want.

The other MMOG that I want is more like the game a lot of other posters have described. I want an open world with robust systems for player influence. Player-made towns. A robust system for guilds and alliances that also facilitates guild vs. guild conflict on terms the combatants choose, from full-time full-loot all the way down to 2 hours on saturday evening with the only prize being a statue that goes back and forth between the winner’s guildhalls. A PvE spawning system that a group of players is able to visibly influence it. UO’s champion spawn system is a start, but I’d like to see something that caused NPC forces to spread if left alone and be pushed back when attacked, and occasionally automatically launch an attack on player towns. The key to making something like this work is to design the system with the players’ perceptions in mind rather than trying to model a real-world ecology. Also you need to make sure that the game world isn’t over-crowded, because too much player pressure can break any dynamic system. Add to this mix paid employees that run live events and such and you’ll have my ideal MMOG.
Kranky Kraut said on February 28th, 2006 at 7:06 am:
I’m out of weed, so I’ll try to stay realistic.

I want a MMORPG that, first and foremost, actively fosters player-to-player interaction and I think the one mechanic that has shown that it works is forced grouping through class interedependecy and the lack of soloing content.

I also think downtimes and steep leveling curves are an important element. Downtimes give people the opportunity to socialize.

Steep leveling curves segment a server’s player population into smaller population brackets which is important for the developement of communities. It’s also important with regard to content. If everyone advances at the same pace, everyone will want to do the same content at the same time. Hello, game developers’ nightmare!

Basically, I want that stuff that makes casual players cry out in agony and I don’t want it because I’m particularly hardcore myself, I want it because all the games that tried to “fix” EQ ended up being completely horribly when it comes to player bonding within the game (sandbox games excluded here).

What people - players and most importantly game developers - must realize is that not every system or mechanic that is “fun” is a good one and not every mechanic or system that is not “fun” is a bad one.

I don’t think that any of the mechanics I’ve mentioned are “fun” per se but they create a great enviroment for social networks within the game. The social aspect is, in my opinion, the true strenght of MMORPGs and I believe that these games should try to leverage this strength. Allowing players to solo from 1-60 within a couple of weeks is not the right way.

As far as “time-based advancement” is concerned… I’m with Anyuzer on that one.
Kressilac said on February 28th, 2006 at 7:38 am:
Any game that doesn’t inspire threads like this: WoW Player-created Generic Complaint Thread

Seriously though, ever since I started programming MUDs I saw what I think the medium should aspire to. I’m firmly in the world simulation camp and I don’t think anyone has done it right with a grand enough vision to make it all work.

I’ve always been of the mind that the game world needs to be built and then the players need to populate most of the world with “places”. The Live Team’s responsibility is to provide dynamic content to the world in an effort to keep the world moving; to stir the pot so to speak. The server would provide a framework for establishing player run governments, guilds, businesses, religions and hunting groups. Everything would be tied together by a resource/spawn system that encouraged communities to form for protection, commerce and resource gathering. Because the “places” of the world were designed by the players, the developers could use this organic content to create “challenges” and other events both large and small scale using background tools developed by the server team. The development team could in this manner add quests and content to the game that was triggered from what the players did in game. Ignore the corpses rising from the graveyard and your city might be invaded but once you erradicate the problem, the same problem does not show up again.

The game should be built from day one with technology in mind. If it is high fantasy based, ocean travel might not be possible but after a series of quests are put in game and completed at the community and individual levels, this technology could be unlocked. My ideal world would feel alive and players would always have the idea that they might discover something new that the server has never seen before.

My ideal game would take all of this and wrap it up with community tools that allow access from multiple devices, phones, web browsing and from within the game. The idea is not to limit the number of people in the world by forcing them to workonly through a graphical client. Commerce, guild management, city management and a host of other activites could take place on the web or over your phone to keep you connected to the world when you couldn’t run a DirectX client.

My ideal world would have roles for casual players and for hardcore players. It would link these roles such that neither can live without the other and both benefit from a continued understanding of their importance.

My ideal world would give value to the newbie in the eyes of the veteran such that it was always in the best interest of the veteran to establish ground with the newbie and there were tangible benefits to players for designing a community that was newbie friendly.

My ideal world would b e a giant sandbox that players could build a world in and developers could tell stories, create adventures and keep alive. In this regard, the developers are designing a setting and the mechanics of how things work in that setting but the players are ultimately responsible for creating the bulk of the content. The job of the developers in this scenario is to make sure there’s enough default stuff going on such that the world gives players reasons to want to create their own content.(politics, quests, markets…)
Ellis said on February 28th, 2006 at 8:18 am:
My ideal is close to Damien’s. Something a tad less restrictive, and I really like immersion. I’m an SEA on the Bartle Test, so enjoy Social stuff, exploring and making my character grow, not just in power or levels, but in his/her own story.

I’ve run a MUSH long enough to know that the ideal can never be made. You just have to come close enough.

I guess my ideal would be a game in which the designer who made it also plays it because s/he designed a game s/he wanted to.
Jeffool said on February 28th, 2006 at 8:57 am:
I’ll go back and read everyone’s after this, so mine has probably been said.

I want an MMO where (a)any single player can effect meaningful change in the world around him, (b)player skill (items/effects excepted) is what matters and not time spent in the world doing any repetitive task. And (c)a world that would be interesting even with no players. If Days of Our Lives can go for this long and still have viewers interested, I fail to see why an MMO can’t change the story a tad bit every week/month in a player-participatory fashion. (Not just a static story with additional events tagged on with larger events happening in expansions.)

Great, now I’ll have to go blog my own in-depth ideas.
Raguel said on February 28th, 2006 at 9:05 am:
Slightly OT but when I think of mmogs I’m reminded of Alan Moore’s discussion of Koch’s Snowflake with respect to Ripperology:

Eventually the snowflake’s edge becomes so crinkly and complex that its length, theoretically, is INFINITE. It’s AREA, however, is never exceeds the initial circle.

Likewise, each new book provides fresh details, finer crenelations of the subject’s edge. Its area, however, can’t extend paast the initial circle: Autumn, 1888. Whitechapel

I think video games in general and mmos in particular have this problem; so with that in mind I try to think of a “unique” mmo. (It can’t be unique if it has a fantasy setting, but let’s ignore that point for the moment :)).

Obviously my ideal mmog would be a dynamic world, but failing that I’d like it to be a “layered” world. I’d like to see content designed with a character’s role within society in mind, as opposed to the character’s role within a group.
Over00 said on February 28th, 2006 at 9:37 am:
A MMO in wich I can be unique?… and not be a clone of all others players.

Not in terms of class/powers/skills as I couldn’t care less about those but in terms of actions

(a bit like in SWG, every server had it’s most famous weaponsmith, best decorated house, most frequented players’ city…)
Michael Chui said on February 28th, 2006 at 10:01 am:
You read my mind, Raph; I was thinking that a forum for discussing the ideal game was necessary, especially between this crowd of people, but I couldn’t quite decide how to do it.

To be perfectly honest: one I designed, or used a codebase I designed.

I’d like to see a world where you can throw a random object, time how long it takes to reach the vertex, and how long it takes to catch it, and from that, determine what the gravitational constant is, roughly.

I like internal consistency. If death is what we think of it in the real world, then I want it to have roughly the same meaning in the virtual world. So if I kill the king of Happyland, the king is dead, and the kingdom will have some leadership issues. He doesn’t respawn. Now, if death is different, then by all means, change it. But don’t pretend it’s the same thing.

I like complications. “Kill monster, get loot” isn’t bad merely because it’s unethical, or because it’s juvenile, but rather because it’s too mindless. Someone once characterized EQ as a place where you went to some spheres, which would then drop some loot for you. There’s no depth. I’d like goals to be less obvious. Levelling is too simple, and too abstract. We have computers. We can do better than HP.

I like emergency. Not in the “Fire! Foe! Flee!” kind of way, but in the sense of unintended, but interesting, consequences, though the former isn’t so bad if it’s encapsulated within the context of the world. I want crazy things to be possible, if someone thinks of it. No, I don’t know how to do it.

And along the same line was internal consistency, I want to be able to actually change the world. I want to be able to cast Fireball at a place and torch it. Of course, you’d be hauled off for arson, maybe killed. That’s fine, too. I want to construct a bridge over a raging river so it’s easier to cross. I want Wall of Fire to leave burn marks in the grass, and Cone of Cold to leave frost that will eventually melt. If a thousand people cut down a tree from a thousand-tree forest, I want that forest to be gone.

I think I can summarize this as: “I want realistic consequences for all actions, and not to toss them aside because players would be unhappy.”
Matthew Lloyd said on February 28th, 2006 at 11:12 am:
If I was to summarize what, in spirit, I want in an MMO?

I want an MMO where people are primary, and the world is secondary.

These are massively multiplayer online games, right?
Eskie said on February 28th, 2006 at 11:34 am:
Sorry about comment 19 - that one got auto-linked without anybody of us doing anything (evil internet).
But now that I am here anyway:
What do I want in an MMO (MMORPG in this case)?

- More focus on other playstyles than just combatants (PvE / PvP). That market segment is not really opened up as far as I can tell, and including players that are interested in leading a social virtual life are vital for the immersion of an MMORPG.

- Complexity. The possibility to discover new facades of the gameplay engine even after having played for 6 or 12 months. Learning is fun for months, mindless button-smashing is fun for a few hours.

- No level grind and no level system as it promotes separation of players, and all measures taken to combat this are just band-aids (and not really successful as a group full of max-level players will always be more effective than a group of mixed players).

- Individuality. Players need to be able to distinguish themselves from other by looks, deeds and achievements.

- The same world for everybody. No seperate servers. The option to stick in one area with current friends, or go out to explore the world and find new friends.

- Dynamic environment. Mobs should not be spawning in the same places all the time, but react to player extermination attempts. Meaningful PvP / PvE environment as in territory control changing. Weather having an influence on movement, combat or crafting efficiency. Seasons.
Glazius said on February 28th, 2006 at 11:42 am:
Mind control.

No, not as a power set, as in the game mind-controls me.

Grind can’t be solved. Grind is in the head of the player.

Griefing can’t be solved. Griefing is in the head of the player.

The Tragedy of the Commons is writ large in every attempt to have players affect the world.

So, since the game is going to have to mind-control people out of the broken behaviors that make games less than fun, it might as well mind-control me into thinking it’s my ideal MMO.

And so it will be.

–GF
StGabe said on February 28th, 2006 at 11:50 am:
My top desires in an MMO, in order of importance:

1) Deep character customization, creation and development. I want a character that has a unique set of skills, a unique look, and develops over time. And I want real choices as I create and develop my characters.

2) An engaging combat (or other game) system that is fun to think about and fun to play.

3) A deep world that I can change. It doesn’t have to be a global change, just local changes. It doesn’t have to be realistic, just consistent.

4) Strong macro- and micro-economies.

5) Strong separation of different modes of play. I want to PvP only when I’m interested in PvP and not have my PvE cluttered with PvP attacks. I want to take time to socialize on my own clock. I’d like a number of clearly delineated subgames to be available.

My top concern in RPG’s of all forms has always been character development and creation. Given such a character I mostly just want fun gameplay to engage in that then spawns further, interesting character development and choices. Gameplay that evolves over time through a world that I can impact and through robust economies seems to be the most effective ways to do this. While it is great to offer different modes of gameplay I don’t want to be forced into one or the other at any given time.

My dream game has the skill system of Diablo, the character customization system of SWG and an economy that is a more balanced version of what SWG has. I’m not sure what it would have for a combat system — I’d like to be surprised. I liked EQ2’s engine but I suspect that ideal for me would be something more strategic which borrowed from FPS’s, RTS’s or tactical RPG’s. I would do just fine with a turn-based system even though I don’t think this really fits the genre at large. I want a world that has a good static content core but borrows some dynamic content like that of Achaea and ATitD (but emphasizes better PvE with this).
chabuhi said on February 28th, 2006 at 12:40 pm:
Nobody would ever produce my ideal game

That said, I “lament” pieces of various MMOs in which I’ve participated:

UO’s advancement
UO’s pre-split danger
SWG’s early char customization
EQII’s graphics quality
EQ’s environmental diversity
EQ’s events (some of them)
DAoC’s dynamicism (for its time)

This could go on forever, of course. Other things I’d like to see:

Death handled in a way that isn’t pointless. (Why die in WoW?)
A “built-in” way for an individual to have a real impact on the virtual world

Apprenticeship - there should be real learning involved in developing a successful character. I know many people prefer that their games not become work, but I find that kind of character development engaging and immersive.

Story. I read a post (sorry, I forget by whom) about how the developer’s writing should take a back-seat to the player’s “writing”. Leave room for the player’s own story. I’d argue that this will happen regardless of the depth of your canon.

There are so many other things I would wish for, but I’m certain many other people would be wishing AGAINST those very things.
StGabe said on February 28th, 2006 at 1:03 pm:
Not to derail, but I think another discussion worth having is:

“Given your ideal game, do you think it would sell well in the current market?”

I’ve eventually come to the conclusion that my ideal game is at best a solid niche title and that levels, grinds, raids, etc., sell to a wider audience.
Raph said on February 28th, 2006 at 1:28 pm:
StGabe, I’ve actually seen a LOT of people say that, and I think it’s worth wondering why.
Kressilac said on February 28th, 2006 at 1:56 pm:
StGabe, I wish what you said wasn’t the truth but unfortunately, I can’t find any evidence that speaks to the contrary. Could an alternative style game (ie non-combat-centric-raiding-level-grind) be just as popular? I think so but its just opinion. I too think it is worth wondering why the only games that sell to a wider audience are level grinds with raiding.

Do I wish things were different, yup. I’m biased though, because I’m hanging on to a game concept that I’m beginning to realize will never see the light of day unless I fund it myself.

It’s sorta like the new Blu-Ray discs from Sony. Many of us hope that their price point of $40 shows Sony once and for all that it can’t feed us DRM laden crap products and expect us to keep buying them. Alas, the platform will be successful because the vast majority of people are lemmings. The same goes for games and expecting people to vote for change with their wallets is setting yourself up for disappointment. People consume what they are fed in the entertainment world and they happily do it over and over again even when they are fed the same thing.

Hopefully, someone figures out a way to grassroots fund an MMO or happens upon someone with a boatload of cash and nothing to do with it. Perhaps then, we will get to see if our ideal MMOs stand a fighting chance in the real world without being relegated to a niche product from day one of the announcement press release.
Spur said on February 28th, 2006 at 2:19 pm:
Kressilac - I think the best hope is for a similar situation to what happens in the film/tv industries, that of the blockbusters bankrolling the experimental/arthouse work. I think we are decades away from that in the MMO industry though. Theres probably only Vivendi/Blizzard who could literally dump tens of millions into an experimental MMO as it stands now…
tuebit said on February 28th, 2006 at 2:44 pm:
I’ve eventually come to the conclusion that my ideal game is at best a solid niche title.

- St.Gabe

I don’t really see why this has to be the case. Your earlier description of your ideal MMO isn’t revolutionary (not meant as a criticism).

There are games out there that individually do parts of what you describe (perhaps not to the level that you envision).

The trouble is, there is no game I’m aware of (please please please, tell me I’m wrong) that incorporates all these things and just works. I must apologize for quoting myself there (Raph’s other topic on lessons learned).

I truly believe that a game must meet certain basic criteria for user friendliness (not easy or dumbed down, just a well designed user interface), minimal bugs, reasonable balance, etc. The ‘basics’ of quality?

If a game doesn’t meet these basics, yes, it is confined to a niche … the niche that considers innovative gameplay more important than basic quality.

In general, there aren’t many MMO’s that meet this basic level. I think THAT’s the real problem.

Potential players will choose first those games that just work. They’ll follow the buzz of recommendation.

If by some chance ‘they’ are presented with multiple options that meet this basic level, then they’ll reward innovation.

There aren’t many options out there for games that just work. And if they do, they have minimal innovative features.

My opinion only. I’m sure there are many people that would say that their current favourite game ‘just works’. I haven’t tried them all, but most that I have tried have failed to capture me … usually as a result of some basic problem.

CoH / CoV currently has my attention. As a game, it more or less works. Other than intial character customization and a lively combat system, it has none of the features you mentioned. I’m not addicted to this game (I sooo want to be addicted to a game again). But I make do for now.

The last game I was addicted to had problems. I enjoyed it because it had something close to some of the features you describe (I’m part of that niche that values innovation enough to forgo the basics). I finally left when the innovation was removed, leaving me only with the problems.
Ketzup said on February 28th, 2006 at 2:46 pm:
I want to be Conan the Barbarian, just like in the old comic books I use to read!

All the conscious entities in the game have a real human brain controlling them, hopfully a brain of a top quality actor.

At most, there are maybe five other Heros (I don’t want my glory whored) in the game, and eventually we’ll meet and go on an epic quest together -nothing short of saving the Universe.

And the World has to be at least as maleable as the real one, adding magic would be a plus. My hands in game work just as well as the ones typing this Reply!

No, I don’t want some MMOG that would bring World peace, or teach jerks to be polite (yes those things would be nice). BUT I WANT THE ULTIMATE EXPIERENCE! Am I sick?
StGabe said on February 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pm:
There are games out there that individually do parts of what you describe (perhaps not to the level that you envision).

Perhaps. I think that my ideas of ideal will never be optimal for the market though. When a game company like Blizzard comes up and does a summary of the most effective mechanics for the mass-appeal product of genre, most of mine won’t be included, and probably for good reason.

From what I understand of the conceptual development of WoW, initially there was quite a bit more character customization of stats. You could apply points here or there as you wished. However, they decided that this would only cause more problems down the road as players build what they later would deem to be sub-optimal characters. The later talent system was a very watered down Diablo system and the allowance that you can change your talents whenever you want (well at a cost of some gold) is very far from my ideal.

Playing WoW for a while and seeing how players enjoy its experience, and from a distanced perspective as I haven’t played much MMORPG’s at all over the past year, it seems clear to me that they are right not implement what I want here. I do think that greater customization would suck up a lot of dev time and would generally have a low rate of return with regard to the entire audience.

Essentially the sorts customization and dynamic world elements I want come down to time versus skill. I want a deep enough character and a deep enough world that I have to think a good deal about both in order to have the character capable of affecting the world in the ways I want to. I want non-trivial choice which implies skill in choosing well. And in general having this will tend to drive off those who don’t want to think as much as I do or can’t make good choices. Better to allow this all things to be earned not through character choices but through time investment if you aren’t going niche.

To me I guess niche just means that you are willing to sacrifice appeal to the majority in order to appeal to a minority audience with focused desires. I’ve given up on the notion that my desires are in the majority and find that as the market grows my particular demographic shrinks as a % and it makes more and more sense to ignore my particular playstyle.
Nyght said on February 28th, 2006 at 3:47 pm:
>StGabe, I’ve actually seen a LOT of people say that, and I think it’s worth wondering why.

Because any logical analysis says we are early adopters. We have a different set of barriers then broader audiences.

These are still mostly technical revolving around the UI and interactivity in general.
Bajeezus said on February 28th, 2006 at 4:40 pm:
What kind of analogy would I use to describe my ideal MMO? You see the themepark analogy used frequently, but in Disneyland you don’t get to paint the rides, or move the popcorn stands around — you don’t really even interact with the other tourists at Disneyland, except by accident, certainly not by design, the focus is very PvE in a themepark.

How about a MMO like a city? In a city you can build, there are social frameworks and competition. But in a city, its easy to just wander in and get lost. You don’t want to become the MMO equivalent of homeless.

Maybe a good analogy would be a University. You have a goal and you have progression. You have social networks, both “dev” designed, like classes and intramural sports, as well as “player content” like frats. You also have orientation week as well as a guidance councillor and a dorm RA to help you out when you are a newbie. I think my ideal MMO would be most like a University, as long as it had a campus town with a really good pub crawl.
Trin said on February 28th, 2006 at 4:58 pm:
It would take a great deal of effort to describe my perfect or ideal MMO, so instead I’ll just point out a few areas that bother me.

I test strongly (70%) as one of Bartle’s Explorers (technically ESA). I would really like to see a game that has more content that caters to me, the explorer playstyle - desire to explore, to find, to know, and to be immersed. With each new game I come to, I have to find my own niche goals to work on that will keep my interest in the game, so that I care about my character while advancing with my more achiever oriented friends.

I agree with others that the world should change with actions done in it. (cutting down all the trees in a forest kills the forest). I’d like for exploration of this changing world to be rewarded, not in the sense that you get xp for visiting locations but where exploration actually served a purpose in game - perhaps some way of having mapmaking as a viable job in game.

As is often mentioned player created content, but I’d especially like to see this in more “frivolous” areas like music and other arts. I don’t think there’s been an MMO yet that I haven’t turned the game music off within a month of starting. As much as I like my own music, it often doesn’t ‘fit’ the scene, so isn’t perfect; but at least more varied.

I wish how I interacted with NPCs mattered. I’d like to see more options in how I respond in conversations with NPCs beyond the “keep talking and give me the quest” or “I don’t care about you anymore” options and have those matter. Rather than the current situation: in one quest I’m perfectly cordial helping this strange little man while the reward doesn’t really matter, but thanks for the sword anyway, then in the next I’m brusquely telling this little old lady that the reward better be good every step of the way. Basically I’d like to see more factions that really matter and better scripts for the NPCs out there including my options for responses.
Raph said on February 28th, 2006 at 5:18 pm:

StGabe, I wish what you said wasn’t the truth but unfortunately, I can’t find any evidence that speaks to the contrary. Could an alternative style game (ie non-combat-centric-raiding-level-grind) be just as popular? I think so but its just opinion. I too think it is worth wondering why the only games that sell to a wider audience are level grinds with raiding.

OK, I am obviously biased, but I’ll give this a whirl with a set of assertions, all of which are IMHO.

The folks who buy WoW for the raids are a tiny tiny subset of early adopter players.

I personally suspect that the large group of folks who bought WoW mostly did so because of Blizzard and Warcraft’s brand. Growth since has proceeded from (deserved) great word of mouth, but their early adopter chasm was not crossed because of the game.

The large, untapped market is of people who enjoy casual games, games like The Sims, games like GTA, and games that only require the mouse to play, like Bejeweled.

The current entire market for MMOs in the West IS early adopter niche — and for that matter, so is the entire traditional boxed product game industry. Almost no games reach beyond a niche market.

The games that are reaching beyond lately often have large “sandbox” elements to them.

All of this leads me to conclude that many of the things that people are saying are nichey AREN’T: decorating houses, making stuff, sandboxy gameplay, and so on. I think the thing that is nichey is the current prevalent model.

Evidence exists in the Asian games as well; they are markedly less complex to operate than the ones here, pay more attention to branding and character design in many cases, and have embraced several “worldy” design paradigms that are not common here, including PvP long before it was popular on this side of the Pacific.
Darniaq said on February 28th, 2006 at 5:33 pm:
Over time, my tastes have changed considerably. But they generally hover around central elements:

Fantasy- I’m old skool. I can’t get enough of European-inspired magic and swords. I want to cast spells. Spells that break things with blinding flashes of light.

Travel- I like WoW and GW’s discovery systems. Get their once on foot, by exploration, through trials and tribulations. Fly there later.

Combat and Equipment- Combat needs to be engaging, as in, choices I make during it are more important than those I made leading up to it. Did I bring the right weapon (daggers and skeletons, not a good mix)? I like Planetside’s approach. EQ1 did some nice stuff early on too, making certain weapons better against certain targets. I wish for more of this.

Combat Action- Collision detection, location-based hits, positional advantages, all that good stuff. Fantasy in an FPS.

Grouping- Allow group leaders to teleport others to them in certain locations (normally right outside an instance). By default. Lore it up however. This is required to lower the barrier to grouping.

Objectives- I want to be part of a thriving Player and NPC society. I want quests from NPCs and other players. That they already exist seems to be lost on many, since player quests don’t give XP (generally just money or items). I want a more formalized system though, where players can post quests (not for XP, but for money and items) and others can sign up for them. Eve’s Contracts come to mind.

Reputation. Ultima IV level of reputation. I want townspeople to turn on me if I have an ‘Air of Dishonesty’ about me. That’s immersion. And if I’m in a group and someone else has an Air of Honesty, there should be a system by which they can “vouch” for me, perhaps paying off a guard, or escorting me to the town Mayor and explaining I’m not such a bad guy. Reputation is already gamed in these games, so let’s make a game out of it!

Real Crafting- I like how ATiTD handles crafting, but even accept EQ2’s system. Both are engaging. Both allow the user to affect the outcome through choices made during the process. SWG did as well, though it was more a numbers game.

Resource collection- Current games seems to do this pretty well. I like EQ2 and ATiTDs systems here, particularly how in the latter players can affect it.

PvP- This requires a flat power curve. Levels are all, err, leveled out. Like Planetside. Higher BRs and CRs can benefit, but a lowbie can still be a good shot.
Spyer O'Brian said on February 28th, 2006 at 5:37 pm:
I want a world that acts and reacts. I want a world where ever aspect of the game changes based on things that happen in it. I want the sense of purpose and real accomplishment.

My most fond memories of gaming is that sense of accomplishment and purpose. After beating Super Mario Bro. I felt like I had just saved the princess. In Deus Ex I felt like I had shifted the world at the end.

My current problem with MMOs is that virtually nothing changes. More specifically that nothing change despite what the player does. How many EQ years has Fippy Darkpaw run towards the gates of Qeynos. Do you have any clue how many gnolls my character alone has killed? Why hasn’t Blackburrow ever stormed the gates of Qeynos? I know if I was a gnoll I’d be pissed that all these humans kept coming from all over to kill my people.

These so called worlds for the most part stand still.
Danny Howard said on February 28th, 2006 at 5:48 pm:
not another rpg

I have for years now been dreaming of a big, virtual “god game” run in a perpetual world on a fast clock. could be railroad tycoon, civ, simcity … especially something like simcity / tropico … where you manage your little space and the collaborate with your neighbors to get your little piece to work with everyone else.

you check in when you feel like it, make decisions … set the course, like gardening, then check back in tomorrow or next week to see how things have developed.

i’m pretty disappointed that the industry hasn’t figured this out yet. there are plenty of mediocre “free” web-based games of this nature. my main gripe with all those is that they are basically text-based games … nap maps. I like clicking around the tiles and saying “put a widget here, and a wodget over there, and connect them with a road …”

anyhow.

just thought i’d mention it.

love,
-danny
James said on February 28th, 2006 at 7:02 pm:
I want a MMOG that can, in every respect, be rightfully called a True Masterpiece.

P.S. make it a Sci-Fi one please.
Wondersaurus Fantabulorus said on February 28th, 2006 at 7:10 pm:
What would the ideal mmorepig have, from where I stand?

A mutable world. Players can change it. Both for the better and for the worse.

Actually playing the game needs to be enjoyable. Whenever I play World of Warcraft, I wonder why I can’t just have a robot do it for me. Besides the Terms of Service.

There needs to be more to do than kill the monsters. And that something more needs to contain better than navigating a menu. I’m looking at you, every crafting system ever made.

Ethics more detailed than good and evil.

None of that Tolkien stuff. There’re more better fantasies than elves and orcs.

Oh, right, a solid, functional, inviting interface. So. Important.

No classes, no levels. I can do anything I want as soon as I start playing. You can limit how much anyone does at once, sure. And there are other ways to create the positive effects of level gradations than blocking off fun.

No visible system numbers. None. Make them guess before they fill out their spreadsheets.

A bright, vibrant, colorful, animated world. With dancing. Lots of dancing.

It would get as little in the way of player expression as possible. The vast majority of items have no inherent alteration to player characteristics.

Magic would actually be magical. Not just wave your hands and shoot a fireball out your ass. Nor should it go the Ultima Online direction, and do everything better than the skill that usually does it.

Also, a pony and a rainbow for every player.

-Me.
Psychochild said on February 28th, 2006 at 7:20 pm:
Raguel wrote:

(It can’t be unique if it has a fantasy setting, but let’s ignore that point for the moment ).

I strongly disagree. There’s a lot of possibilities that have been left untouched by other games. Most of the fantasy games out now are specifically high fantasy games. There are a lot of other genres of fantasy, including barbarian (or “low”) fantasy like ElfQuest (and which the upcoming Conan game from Funcom will focus on), dark/gothic fantasy, horror fantasy, and many others. There’s a lot of space to explore just in fantasy that games have ignored.

Some thoughts,
Nyght said on February 28th, 2006 at 7:21 pm:
>OK, I am obviously biased, but I’ll give this a whirl with a set of assertions, all of which are IMHO.

Thats why we like you Raph

>The folks who buy WoW for the raids are a tiny tiny subset of early adopter players.

Yep, no agruments here.

>I personally suspect that the large group of folks who bought WoW mostly did so because of Blizzard and Warcraft’s brand. Growth since has proceeded from (deserved) great word of mouth, but their early adopter chasm was not crossed because of the game.

Don’t lay this off to ‘extremely polished’. Your extremely polished was the customer’s acceptable quality.

>The large, untapped market is of people who enjoy casual games, games like The Sims, games like GTA, and games that only require the mouse to play, like Bejeweled.

Absolutely

>The current entire market for MMOs in the West IS early adopter niche — and for that matter, so is the entire traditional boxed product game industry. Almost no games reach beyond a niche market.

Yes I think so too. But this is largely a UI/interactivity thing. Gamers have already crosssed that barrier, which make them the obvious market.

>The games that are reaching beyond lately often have large “sandbox” elements to them.

Eh? Blinded by WoW I guess. Can you list these?

>All of this leads me to conclude that many of the things that people are saying are nichey AREN’T: decorating houses, making stuff, sandboxy gameplay, and so on. I think the thing that is nichey is the current prevalent model.

I think so too but find it hard to produce empirical data in light of past releases.

>Evidence exists in the Asian games as well; they are markedly less complex to operate than the ones here, pay more attention to branding and character design in many cases, and have embraced several “worldy” design paradigms that are not common here, including PvP long before it was popular on this side of the Pacific.

I still believe PvP is a special problem because the disparity between level playing fields and RPG. Am I missing somthing?

As above and what DQ said.
Raph said on February 28th, 2006 at 7:49 pm:

Don’t lay this off to ‘extremely polished’. Your extremely polished was the customer’s acceptable quality.

Of course; the polish drove word of mouth hugely, and permitted crossing over to a much larger group.

But consider the basic question of how many controls WoW (or any of our games) affords. just count how many buttons are required to do the basic navigation of the game, how many axes of control are needed.

Then consider that mass market titles mostly stick to >The games that are reaching beyond lately often have large “sandbox” elements to them.

Eh? Blinded by WoW I guess. Can you list these?

Zelda, Sims, Grand Theft Auto…
Excavius said on February 28th, 2006 at 8:57 pm:
Hey Raph, What about your ideal mmo. What would you like to create for a ideal world. (although it may never be done). We know that you cant list some things for obvious reasons but what about the core essence of it.

On another note I also approve the one world/one character server as well. If you do something bad in a world expect to have enemies and not be able to just poof.
Tess said on February 28th, 2006 at 8:58 pm:
A dedicated and voracious programmer will scratch her itches. If she wants something badly enough, she’ll make it, herself. I don’t have time to build an MMO by myself. So, it’s perilous for me to even contemplate what I want. Maybe I’ll make some comments later, when I have time.
The Smart Guy said on March 1st, 2006 at 2:27 am:
Basically most of you want to be able to live real life, online! But, be able to be whoever you want whenever you want and have it feel as if you’re actually what you’re pretending to be.

The only interactive system, theoretical or real, that could offer the immersion, options, freedom and meaning you want from this type of game is the holodeck technology on Star Trek shows. Add in a way to network holodecks and allow people to experience the same world at the same time and you have the ultimate MMORPG. A real life simulation where you aren’t playing a character, you ARE the character.

I think its gonna be awhile before anything even gets close to what yall are asking for.
Don said on March 1st, 2006 at 2:34 am:
Ideal MMO for me:

* no level banding
Level banding breaks up players, limits what they can participate in. Worse, it breaks up friendships according to play-time.

* unique characters
We can’t all be heroes, but we can all be individuals. I don’t want to be punished for being different. I don’t want to have to wear the same costume as everyone else because it has the best ’stats’ for my ‘class’

* the ability to affect the world
Houses, cities, customised items, customised content - and a market to support them. When I do something, I’d like to leave my mark on the world somehow.

* everyone play together
Planetside captured this in its early days (before the addition of the dreaded BFR) - everyone was useful, everyone had something they could do, and all the cool things required you to have someone else’s help.

* excellent in-game communications
Too many fast-paced games still rely on text chat for communication. Voice macros are becoming more common, but to really communicate and coordinate you need more than just text. GUI elements like waypoints, goal reminders (a.k.a. WoW quest window) and similar that can be set by the team leader, a friend, whatever.

* fun core mechanic
I feel any game - MMO or not - should know what it’s core mechanic is and it should be fun. The thing that you expect the bulk of players to do the bulk of the time. For most it’s combat, but it doesn’t have to be. It does have to be fun in and of itself though, not a means to an end.

* no obviously pointless downtime
Things like travel time, extended rest periods, etc. can end up frustrating the player more than not. A casual gamer with an hour to play (which I find myself becoming more and more lately) cannot play a game where it takes 30 minutes just to reach your friends (WoW, I’m looking at you!) and another 15 minutes to prepare to defeat your foe. City of Heroes’ ‘Recall Friend’ is one of the best ideas I’ve seen in a MMORPG yet.
Eskie said on March 1st, 2006 at 4:14 am:
In response to The Smart Guy:

> Basically most of you want to be able to live real life, online! But, be able to be whoever you want whenever you want and have it feel as if you’re actually what you’re pretending to be. (…) A real life simulation where you aren’t playing a character, you ARE the character.

I think that is taking it way too far. The “shortcomings” of current MMOs seem to be that they are built not having long-term character development in mind, and if they do, character development is quite simplified (kill X number of Y to get to max level, or do quests A, B and C to get to max level).

The focus is too much on becoming more powerful rather than to actually participate in the world. In my opinion most MMOs do not have an endgame because the worlds are not dynamic, leaving players to do the same repetitive tasks over and over once they reach max level, eventually becoming bored.

People want an MMO as an escape from their real lives (or to have at least a small sandbox to play in, in which they can experiment without real-life risks). I agree on that point. However, this does not imply that the MMO needs to be 100% realistic.

I dont need a 100% accurate physics engine to feel immersed. I dont need permadeath to feel 100% immersed. I dont need to die by just being hit once by a bullet to feel immersed.

What I do need, however, is some set of goals to strive for (that can be set by me or by the games narrative), a good chance of succeeding in achieving most of those goals, and a balanced amount of effort that it takes to reach those goals. And I need the possibility to set myself new goals as I master previous ones, or receive new goals from the narrative.

While I strive to reach those goals, I need to be able to use as much common sense as possible, not running into blatant immersion-breakers. If I kneel behind a wall, a monster should need longer to locate me, and another player should not be able to shoot me through that wall.

If it rains, I should not be able to run circles as tight as if the soil was dry. If one of my goals is to take over a city with my guild, I should be able to put guild insignias on the city hall, and if the minions of boss mob ImEvil take over a city, it should not be a safe place to go anymore until the city has been freed again. And if mob ImEvil dies trying to defend that city, he should stay dead and ImEvenMoreEvil should take over his empire.

Also, PvE should not need to be much different from PvP. PvE needs a lot more AI than it has currently. If I am out hunting, see wolfhound A, attack it, and can predict that wolfhound A will come running towards me, and that I need to root it after the second arrow I shoot, and then just shoot some more arrows, than that is an immersion breaker. Why doesnt wolfhound A run away when being hit, and wolfhound B jumps onto me out of a bush while I try to keep up with A?

I want to be able to look up to other players who accomplished something. If I start crafting swords, I need to invest serious effort before my swords are as good as the ones from Jack Armsman who has been making swords for 6 months and knows what he is doing.

I want to be able to do something besides combat and crafting, just having a glorified chatroom in a tavern, for example, and be able to meet people there who actually enjoy doing just that.

I do not believe that all of what I described above can be accomplished by programs alone. I think a healthy dose of game masters with ground-breaking tools is necessary to accomplish it.

So to conclude: I dont need a holodeck, but a believable world that I can influence would be nice. I dont mind if I see my book shelf over the top edge of my screen, or here some kids shouting outside when I am playing that MMO.
Ladnar said on March 1st, 2006 at 5:17 am:
Wouldn’t it be great if you could combine existing games into a virtual world?

For instance, there’s some dance pad game that is a niche game. Now if you could connect that niche game to say the virtual SWG world and have the people playing the dance game controlling perhaps psuedo-NPC dancers in a cantina. There’s a guitar game out there, that lets you play music. Same scenerio, you can either play the guitar game solo, connect with some freinds through some P2P type instance, or connect to a virtual world in which you play for, interact with and provide entertainment for others.

One of Raph’s comments made me think of that, and maybe it’s a thought worth putting out there.

As to the question at hand. What is my ideal MMO? One that allows me to explore and discover new things. One that is dangerous. One that would allow me to pass along some of my characters knowledge and skills to my next character when my main dies. A virtual world that changes. Quests that have consequences.
Batjutsu said on March 1st, 2006 at 5:59 am:
A game that did not try to cater to different mindsets, i.e. is it a fun game, or an RPG. If it is an RPG then consequances to actions exist.
A setting that has been thoroughly worked out, with ‘metaphysics’ so the game makes sense in context to itself, even if it is completely unrealistic. Basically context, this is important since people constantly relate everything they see in a game to real life, at some point anyway. By having a world actually follow its on metaphsyics whatever systems are used make sense in relation to what the designers say is supposed to happen.
People have to be IC but the game does most of the work of being IC so drop down menus exist so players cannot just start typing tripe. A game I am writing for PBM is working along this premise. That also means that any time a conversation path is chosen the game knows exactly what context the conversation is, thus further effecting character personality traits.
Combat is more dynamic and flows better like Unreal Tournament side stepping, but much more so. Standing mostly still exchanging rockets or great swords to the head just undermines the action for me.
Characters can be NPC or PC and not be so obviously noticeable. NPC that stand about repeating the same script undermine imersion.
Players do not have to grind. Since it is impossible to play 24/7/365 there is a restriction on the amount of time=gain.
A social and political system that does not rely on players.
A non-static world, so quests are given out in a natural way and the results of the quest matter, no matter what the results are. So if all the vile monsters are killed all the warriors have a choice sit about or do something else. If a society has no external threats it will likely suffer from heavy infighting, thus players always have something to do.

If it is a game about skill and fun, then no need to make a new one they already exist play UT or Starcraft
Richard Brewster (Bat)
chabuhi said on March 1st, 2006 at 6:04 am:
Oh, and abolish roleplaying. Not that I have anything against RP, I love to participate in it myself, but it is unenforceable in MMOs. Why bother setting yourself up for disappointment by establishing RP servers? The community cannot police itself because the community is fractured (if not broken altogether).

One player’s RP simply means to be playing a char in the MMO. The next player believes it is a matter of speaking “as” the character (never mind that said speech might be “l33t”). Yet a third may restrict RP to “high fantasy” language. And then there’s the player to whom RP means that YOU play the game HIS way.

I’ve seen RP fairly successfully enforced by the community in a couple of MUDs, but MMO communities are simply too capricious.
tuebit said on March 1st, 2006 at 8:06 am:
I personally suspect that the large group of folks who bought WoW mostly did so because of Blizzard and Warcraft’s brand. Growth since has proceeded from (deserved) great word of mouth …
[...]
Of course; the polish drove word of mouth hugely, and permitted crossing over to a much larger group.

Prescription: Secure an excellent brand to ensure a large opening? Then polish, to ensure positive word of mouth and brisk growth?

Is there no room for innovative features in this prescription? (Or is this hidden in that word ‘polish’? If it is, it shouldn’t be … they are two different concepts)

The success of WoW obscures the truth. Imagine two games, with equal ‘polish’, equal starting community, and equal basic features (combat system, advancement, etc).

If the second such game included additional features that addressed Raph’s lament, I’d play the second game, not the first.

The trouble is, this is not the case. Very few games are polished (at least, that I’ve played).

And among those games that might be said to be polished, most fall short in other ways.

Some lack basic features that WoW includes (some lack crafting and economy, some have you playing a ’ship’ rather than a more personal representation). Many of these games also lack the brand.

Despite a hundred or more MMO current, or coming, there is really no choice available to the consumer.

In a world where all games were polished, progressive features that add additional loci of control, would become the deciding factor on whether the game declines or grows.

There is, perhaps, little evidence to support this belief, only because the industry has delivered so few samples to examine.

A revised prescription:

Build a MMO on a strong brand and they will at least come and take a look.

Build a MMO that is polished and they will come, stay for a while and tell their friends that they’re having a good time. Their friends will come if they have nothing better to do.

Build a MMO that is polished and more innovative than the competition and they will come, stay and bring their friends along too.

But consider the basic question of how many controls WoW (or any of our games) affords. just count how many buttons are required to do the basic navigation of the game, how many axes of control are needed.

Is this too much of a simplification? It’s not really the number of controls required that could turn a person off a game. To my mind, it’s more the nature of the controls that matters.

On the web, there is typically more than one site offering any particular functionality you can name. In the end, I find people migrate to the one that has the best user interface.

I’m not an expert in such things. As a web developer, my interfaces are not typically the best. When it is important for an interface to be amazing, I go out and subcontract someone with more skill than I in interface design.

Do game companies hire experts in user interface design? Or is this left up to the coders and game designers who (imo, no offense) aren’t likely to have the same skills as someone who makes a living from great UI.
Mavis said on March 1st, 2006 at 8:10 am:
Players start in small communities under threat and have to develop those communites. There power tied to the existence of that community. Failure will destroy the community - but leave the players alive but starting again. But where they can turn a village soon to be destroyed into a thriving city.

A game where players have the choice between developing them selves or developing there community - unlocking new powers from them or for everybody.

A game where communities battle other communites for resources - in a geographical sense.

A game were look and function are seperate - and you develop your look as much as you develop your ability to kill.

A gmae like guild wars whre you unlock more powers - not just better powers
tuebit said on March 1st, 2006 at 8:44 am:
Of course; the polish drove word of mouth hugely, and permitted crossing over to a much larger group.

Perhaps another discussion that would have merit would be: “What is polish?”

It’s more than just miniming defects. There’s a whole body of investigation on effective UI to consider. This polish concept is also about low-level design decisions.

For example, I once played a game where the division of xp encouraged solo groups. Forcing grouping is not ideal, but forcing grouping for the sole purpose of running solo is worse still.

A theory of fun (I haven’t read it yet, sorry) could lead to a series of tests that every design decision is evaluated with.

I read (as best I could) your presentation on methods for describing game designs. The methods you described seemed like they might show promise for detecting logical and some interface issues. But they didn’t seem to tie in with concepts of fun. Did I read it too lightly?
Amaranthar said on March 1st, 2006 at 9:20 am:
My dream game would be like this:

A realistic feeling world that’s highly interactive. I loved the way in UO you could reach out and touch so many things, making your curser act like your hands and eyes. Picking things up and dropping them, drinking a mug of ale, setting it down on a table, refilling it from a bottle or pitcher, and drinking it again, reading signs and or looking closely at things, the levers and puzzles, the painting with the numbers on, books! Interaction, for entertainment as well as a way to hide things in the wolrd and allow players to discover them on their own, without needing to be directed by some quest.

A world where players can build cities, castles, temples, or other things that revolve around either a community, or their own individual power.

A world where there is risk, but also ways for protection against risks through social means or pure power.

A world where there are few godlike characters, and those that are have so many restrictions through costs in money and time that they have to continue this expence, so that they don’t have the inclination to misuse their power against other players. A world that doesn’t center around level grinding to a sure win to levels of godlike power. A world based on skills mostly, where a skilled player merely has an advantage, not a demi-god status.

A world where trade skills require time to make items, and items are made in parts first, them assembled, and where newbies have a place in this by making parts for greater tradesmen who can then modify them and assemble them. Up the rungs of the ladder. Where a field can be grown by one, and a more skilled character can hire the lower skilled to do work for him, so that he can apply his greater skill to grow better or more crops. The time requirements making this more feasable.

A world without artificial restrictions to social interactions. A world with crime, but also with player justice when and if caught. A world where a city can go to war with another, where conquests are possible, and revolts too. A world where politics play a key role.

A world where death hurts enough and is feared enough that players activities reflect this. Where permadeath can be a risk in extreme but predictable situations, the risk being offset by the possible rewards.

A world full of challenging adventures, where the journey is at least as entertaining as the climax.

A true skill based game, because it just works better for the players. Where there are classes, but not defined by choosing a class. Rather, a mage shouldn’t be able to cast spells while wearing armor, andthieving abilities require light armor and small weapons, due to the effects of the armor, weapons, weight, etc. Where they can try it, and find out why it causes failure, not simply be told by the game that they can’t do that. Where stats play a role in limiting a player on where he can take his character growth.

A world where players “win” by using their own smarts, not just given victory by spending time on predictable patterns.

A world with a good NPC AI. Few static spawns, MOBs that roam in search of goals, build their own communities and defenses, raid, etc. NPCs that fear for their lives, or lust for blood and gold, or have other agendas based on social orders.

And a world where there’s a full time staff that has the tools available to bring life to the game world. Both in acting and leading events forwards, and in dropping unusual settings for players to stumble onto. A world where there are background stories running for players to discover, get involved in, and defeat or join.
A world full of mystery and intrigue, secrets, lost lore, and hidden or fogotten things of all kinds.
Raph said on March 1st, 2006 at 9:37 am:
I don’t feel comfortable describing my ideal MMO in great detail… save to mention specifically to StGabe that perhaps the tension between two different design impulses that he says he perceives explains why I don’t have just one, but in fact several.

I’d like to explore the user content side of things much more.

I’d also like to make the fully immersive world.

I am also very interested in a world where every activity is a fun game or activity in its own right.

A while back on f13 I posted the following:

My mantra these days:

NO
• Fee
• Shards
• HUD
• Levels
• Skills
• Inventory management
• Tutorial
• Dragons or elves
• Grind
• Boobies
• Travel
• Static zones
• Tedium or makework
• Hotkey fests
• Spreadsheets
• Oppressive maintenance
• 4 hour sessions
• 4 gig installs

YES
• …to swords
• Explosions
• Fun in 10 minute blocks
• Building
• Groups levelling up together
• Player skill required
• User content
• Consequence to actions
• Competition
• 60+ player games
• Interdependence
• Embedded experiences
• Self-directed pursuits
• Humor and wit
• Intelligence
• Obvious play mechanics
• Quality story and worldbuilding

Tuebit: I gave my prescription a long time ago, but it doesn’t start with a big brand, it starts with a powerful idea. A brand is just shorthand for a concept, a worldview, something that drives passion.

There’s a lot of misconceptions, for example, about the power that the Star Wars brand had in terms of the word of mouth growth for that title. If you go back, you’ll see that there was relatively little marketing in a classic sense. There’s a LOT of SW games, so in itself the brand doesn’t necessarily provide a ready-made audience, and when you look at the sales history of other SW titles, this is borne out — none of them get truly massive boosts solely on the brand.

Instead, it was the slow growth via forums and word of mouth as we built the community step by step the old fashioned way that got the momentum going. And that was done by presenting a vision that caught the imagination. I carefully watched the metrics on the community growth, and the pattern was very clear: it was a classic j-curve, not an “open big” curve like you would expect a brand to give.

UO was very much the same thing btw. ALL the initial buzz came from word of mouth via a rogue website and our participation on web forms and newsgroups. The team rogue announced the game, rather than the company doing it, and I vividly remember the day when marketing came up to our floor and asked “what IS this game? We keep getting asked about it during out preview sessions for Longbow!”

Once you have your core of passionate evangelists, you then move on to execution. And you do have to execute, or you will dissipate the momentum.

My sense is that WoW didn’t have that sort of adoption pattern; they ran quiet until the beta, and the beta itself is what drove stuff. But the immense power of the Blizzard name is a massive, massive factor. There’s a lot of folks playing that game who are new to MMOs who were brought in by the brand, I think. So they got to skip some chunk of J-curve growth. Then the polish sealed the deal.

Network effects, btw, also tell us that the larger you are, the larger you get.
tuebit said on March 1st, 2006 at 9:56 am:
I gave my prescription a long time ago, but it doesn’t start with a big brand, it starts with a powerful idea. - Raph

I’ve either missed your prescription, or didn’t recognize it. Do you have a link? I’d enjoy reading it (or is this a reference to your book)?

My sense is that WoW [...] ran quiet until the beta, and the beta itself is what drove stuff. But the immense power of the Blizzard name is a massive, massive factor. [...] Then the polish sealed the deal.

I played during stress test. My reaction: ho-hum, not a very inventive game, but WOW, it just works (the polish). I’d agree: the Blizzard name got me to try, but the polish kept me (for a little while). POLISH was the key!

Interesting comment on the SW brand. I would have assumed it was a bigger impact. I tried SWG because of the