Well, we’re sort of off topic now. But anyway:

People still refer to the identical mechanics of unconsciousness and death as death because that’s what every other MMO refers to it as – not to mention just about every other game before it. They already associate the mechanics of game death, where you come back again, with being death. That’s not going to change from one game.

*However,* this isn’t the case for people who advocate permadeath on the basis of realism. They don’t associate death with coming back right away – that’s the whole issue. Referring to unconsciousness as death because that’s what death *is* in every other game and then complaining that the game’s death isn’t realistic because you can come back from it is inherently contradictory. The fix is a non-issue for those who don’t care about the realism of death, but addresses the concerns of those who do.

Have there been many advocates for permadeath in LotR online? (You know, post – Middle Earth Online from Sierra…) Or are they satisfied by the rephrasing?

Okay, I think I see where Damion’s going with this. In fact, I think we’re on pretty much the same page. What got me was the idea of the “triangle” and finding the middle. That analogy brings to mind the “power management” of space shooters like Freespace or Wing Commander. The immediate implication for me, anyway, is that you’re dealing with a fixed resource: that if you make the game “gamier” then you automatically have to remove simulation and social aspects to maintain balance. It implies an inherent conflict between the three, which I don’t think is always the case, and I’m pretty sure you don’t think so either as you give examples where it isn’t.

Would I be correct in rephrasing your argument to say “stick as much game, social, and simulation aspects in as you possibly can, insofar as nothing added harms the areas it detracts from more than it benefits those it benefits?” We’re not looking for the *middle* of the triangle, we’re looking for the *biggest* triangle possible, understanding that any single design decision will effect the length of each side differently.

As an aside to address one point, I’ve always wondered how many of the advocates for permadeath (as in, both those who want it, and those who see the appeal for the sake of verisimilitude but don’t think it’s worth it) would be satisfied by a simple change of verb. Let’s just stop having the game refer to what happens when your HP reaches 0 as “death,” and when you respawn as “resurrection” and call them “unconsciousness” and “revival” instead. Suddenly the simulation is much better – as this is really the natural process we’re most closely replicating – and we don’t change the actual gameplay at all. (RPers have been explaining away “death” as “unconsciousness” for years!)

Amaranthar:
I think the importance of direction was an important lesson of UO. UO was very newbie unfriendly, because for all its possibilities, they were really quite overwhelming to the new player. They’d pop into existance in front of an Inn. And… that’s it. (To be fair, the layer of the simulation that would provide direction was never really finished – Raph has notes up about it here someplace.) There were countless efforts made to make the transition to UO for new players easier. (Mentor program, “young player” features, etc) Ultimately, I don’t think any of them were really all that successful, because they were tacked onto a game that really didn’t have a sense of direction.

If you want to experience the shock that was UO to a new player, try Wurm. (www.wurmonline.com – basic accounts are free, and it’s Java based so no client) Technical issues aside (it’s in a pretty crude sate right now), it’s scope is truly enormous… and really quite terrifying even for experienced MMOG players. The sense that there’s so much to do and yet nothing to do is quite bewildering.

The issue isn’t whether direction should be provided, I think, it’s whether players should be forced to follow that direction exclusively due to a lack of outside, supporting systems to allow unstructured play. (One of the worst consequences of which is running out of game and quitting – players will never “run out of game” if they’re eased into an environment where they create their own game for each other as they go.)

One problem with leaning too much towards the world/simulation side, is that you can easily end up with a game that’s more like work than like fun.

Like this, for example.

Half-Life 2 was structured, yes (and I can’t chalk up its’ excellent pacing to anything but very careful design). I was merely using it as an example of a more generic idea of world simulation contributing to an idea of “game.” Many of the puzzles were designed with clear solutions, but the freedom that the physics simulation allowed served to make the designed solution a little “fuzzier,” so the solution feels like it belongs more to the player and less like a hoop they’ve been told to jump through. That’s more rewarding (which leads to another topic entirely.) However, let’s not forget that Half Life’s simulation aspects allowed for Gary’s Mod, which is as pure a sandbox as you can get, really. It’s an example of players using the simulation created by the developers to do their own thing – or really, a player using the simulation aspects of the game to do his own thing to allow other players to do even more of their own thing. (The primary weakness of which is that it’s so hard to share what you’ve done, a problem that isn’t shared by MMOs)

I agree whole-heartedly that a pure simulation/sandbox MMO wouldn’t succeed commercially any more (at least under the $60/game + $15/month model of the AAA MMO, but Raph’s quite fond of pointing out alternative experiences around here. Look at the “Hotel Goldfish” keynote summary. That place is “locked down” in its own way in that interactions are very limited, but when you consider that all they provide are rooms and furniture, most of the real content *has* to come from the players). Most players *do* want the experience provided for them. My argument is for provided sandbox elements that exist alongside of a structured core experience. (I think we’re on the same page here, it’s a question of degree, but I really don’t think the current generation of MMOs provide nearly enough of this. You mentioned going with the players’ “push” for World/Game/Social elements – what happens when your initial design is so locked down, the players hands are tied to the extent where they can’t push at all? Blizz has actually moved *away* from what little “World” elements they had – look at the Gurubashi Arena, for instance. The only spot in the world, pre-BC, where you could do open/group PvP. Then they coopted it with some treasure chest event.) Allow the players a free hand, even if its in an environment separated from the core, structured play so as to not risk “breaking” the experience you’ve designed, and the minority which will create its own experience will do so… and furthermore, they’ll create things which will draw in other players which won’t.

I suppose modding is the ultimate example of this in action. (I’m trying to find game-related examples beyond MMOs because there are so few “open” MMOs around any more. Also, community content is a bit of a buzzword right now, so I’m shamelessly coopting it onto my side of the debate!) Players want an experience provided for them, that’s what they’re willing to start paying $15/mo for after all, but some players want to create experiences and will provide them to others. Open MMO environments get rid of the technical hurdles because the simulation provides everything the players need to create a new experience. Never underestimate the power of novelty in keeping people interested in your game. No matter how appealing your core gameplay is (and let’s face it, most MMO aren’t so hot in providing fun core gameplay, and make up the enjoyment provided by raw “fun” with a sense of accomplishment – you play the game to achieve something, not because that part of the game is fun. “Grinding” is the ultimate expression of this: players are willing to toss fun out the window entirely for the sake of accomplishment.) people still need novelty. They’ll either provide that for themselves if your game allows that, or they’ll get it from another game. (Or you can pay staff to do it, good luck in keeping up.)

A world environment *provides* for *new* gameplay. So I can’t view “World”/Simulation as being in opposition to the “game” aspects of the MMO. It certainly interferes with designer-crafted, structured gameplay, which is, of course, only a subset of the gameplay provided by an MMO. So either design with simulation in mind, (i.e. design problems with solutions rather than solutions with problems, build your world around necessary non-real gameplay elements rather than trying to fit gameplay elements into an established world, etc) or find a way to physically separate the two. But you can have both, and I don’t think one has to limit the other.

Nah, Half-life 2 actually proves the point in my presentation, which is that entertainment experiences which has some world and some game are going to be stickier than something that is all world or all game. Half-Life 2 is much more ‘well-centered’ – it’s got a lot more room to play with environments and physics than, say, Fear, but it still brought all of the game things to the table: directed goals, relatively linear story, etc. It’s an artful blend.

I’ll address some of your other concerns on my blog, but the short form is that Simulations have not really taken hold in MMOs largely because if you challenge most people to find their own fun, the vast majority of them will fail to do so. The ones that succeed will swear up and down that those are the greatest online moments of their lives. But they will end up being in the minority.

Erik Bethke’s talk was a marvelous talk this year – he talked about how they are adding quests, levels and other ‘mmo’ reward structures to GoPets, a game which was until very recently, purely a sandbox. They talked repeatedly about focus groups where players were lost, confused and discouraged because they didn’t know what they were supposed to do next.

Matt, you don’t have to convince me…I am in the choir. Oh…thanks Raph for all the play by play from the conference. I was just in Austin visitin my mother, had I paid attention it might have been cool to stay for this. : )

Back to Matt’s comments: I whole heartedly agree. All of my UO stories end the same way too. It is very hard to have a “life experience” that everyone one else has and consider it an experience. Yes, UO was a game and yes…it was not structured to encourage or dissuade RP’ing, but it was structured to create experiences. And in that case I would call it a simulation. It created a place where you could do…and be…and experience your own things. Because of that, we (all those that played it) have our own experiences. That means as a game it succeeded, up until the point they started pulling the reigns in. And it also made some folks some cash. But sadly, UO would not be made today. And that is the point I get from Damion’s point. Neither would Shadowbane…and that is sad. Because like it or not…no one walked away from that game without experiences either. But neither game speaks the words publishers think sell. But they do create vast experiences.

And to me…that is what we should be shooting for. That is what you guys should be giving us. A palette for our experiences. And as long as we can have that…people will play…and continue to play. I find it interesting that Damion contradicts himself here. He suggest that the middle is what we should go after, while building the experience so that people will become Hardcore. I don’t see how anyone can build an experience rich world without creating a place where people can have individual or shared experiences that are different and play to the game model more than the simulation model. But I could be missing something in his points.

I look at it like I look at any other art form. We all get something else out of the songs we listen to, the books we read, the movies we watch…as long as those mediums are created from that perspective. We forget that last trite pop song by those guys we can’t name, that action movie that was a carbon copy of the last bullet fest, and that pop culture book that told us everything some else thinks we need to hear.

But, we take away our own experiences, good or bad, from things that are created to touch us and open up that experience. UO touched me. I played it. I created my own experiences. EQ didn’t touch me…because my experience was the same as everyone’s. Didn’t play EQ2 because it was more of the same. Shadowbane touched me. Precisely because of the world. It was hard, it was different. Every day was something new that only myself, my colleagues, and the guys on the other side of the line were experiencing. Only those that were there would ever know what happened and why it was fun. I played WoW and quit before I even got to the “middle game”, precisely for the same reason I quit EQ and never played EQ2…I got tired of the quest grind that everyone else does and some one “thinks” I will like to do like everyone else. And no amount of socializing saved the game. My friends played on…but I quit…precisely because I was not having my own set of experiences that I could call my own or share with my friends.

I want something that speaks to me. Sure…Web 2.0 like player driven content would be great (under some form of structure to avoid the Second Life nonesense), but in the end, I want a place to have my own and shared experiences. And I don’t see that happening in Damion’s world, uh, game. I loved Shadowbane though. So..hats off to him for being apart of that game.

In the end, he is right…this is not about Martini’s, good Scotch, or even Mead…this is about watered down beer that everyone will buy and drink, and say “thank you” and “may I have another”.

Sad really…

cl

Sorry to co-opt your blog Raph, but this *is* where this entry is, so it makes sense to discuss it here.

The one thing that bothers me is the world-game duality. I really think it’s more of a structured-unstructured thing, or amusement-park vs sandbox.

I find myself on the “World/Sandbox” side of Damion’s divide, at least, compared with most MMOGs which are released nowadays. I don’t think that opposes “game” at all: increasingly, we see that simulation *is* game. How many games are we seeing now that use world-simulation as a key part of gameplay? Modern racing games are founded on it. Half-Life 2 really brought it into the shooter genre, and now it’s everywhere. How many hours did I spend fooling around in Gary’s Mod, welding zombies to rocket-cars? How many hours in “Dwarf Fort” despite the lack of graphics and a usable interface? How many hours in “Bridge Construction Set 2″ building the least practical working bridges possible? Simulation makes things novel and interesting because it opens new aspects to gameplay. What it is, however, is very hard to control, and so opposes *structured* gameplay.

I think that the decision to land on the structured side of things is a good choice financially. Most people play to be entertained: the simulated world is EXTREMELY intimidating to new users. On the other hand, the structured game means you run out of things to do when you reach the “end” of whatever the designers have planned out for you, and all you stick around for after that is because of time invested. I played UO for more than 3 years. I played WoW for less than 1, left, and came back once they added new content with the expansion, played a few months, ran out of content, and left again.

All the best stories about UO are the great things people did precisely because it was unstructured. Piracy on the high seas. Sieges at the Shadowclan fort. Merchants forming cartels and “DeBeers”ing all the NPC coloured armour. Jumping through a Moongate to fire island with nothing but a newbie hatchet and a knife, and playing the survival game. WoW stories, on the other hand, are empty in comparison, because virtually everything you can do in the game was designed for you, so it’s not really an accomplishment. Most of the WoW stories I’ve heard are just bragging about the biggest, shiniest item, and the only people that entertains are other people playing WoW. (Incidentally, all my good UO stories end in “and then the Devs added more structure so you couldn’t do that any more.”)

Structure certainly has its place. But you can’t lock down everything and expect to be able to plan, produce and balance as much content as enterprising players could do for themselves otherwise. (The most fun I’ve had in WoW in a long time was founded around those “Heavy Leather Ball” items you get from the faire.) An ideal circumstance, I’d say, is an unstructured system which runs in parallel to the normal structured “endgame” we see in MMOs today. Let players make at least some of their own content, and they’ll be more willing to wait for your team to come up with more. Bliz would get my money for an expansion pack which consisted of nothing but a very large, procedurally generated continent with *no* new items, *no* new quests, *no* new instances, but some open systems that let me play with my friends. (Open PvP, basic player housing in some regions, etc.) I can tell you right now I’m not shelling out for another 10 levels of grind, some new “halls with boss rooms” uninteresting instances, some shiny new overpowered items, and more factions, which is what Wrath of the Lich King offers.

UO got more money out of me than WoW ever will not because it was a better “game,” in the sense that in this usage of “game” every moment of my experience is planned out for me, but because it was a better experience. Now I just need to convince WoW’s remaining 8,999,999 subscribers of the same…