Pondering MMO Status Quo
Yesterday was actually a pretty good day at work: moderately busy, but successful and productive. That helped my overall mood, but I still feel like I'm recovering from Monday. I just can't bounce back like I once did, physically or mentally.
I don't have special insights into the minds of game developers, but some things are not hard to imagine.
They get an MMORPG together and think "Okay, now what?" They could leave it all solo-oriented, but then what's really the point of it being massively-multiplayer? So they want to encourage group play. That means putting in challenges that players can't readily do alone. Since most "challenges" in such games are enemies to be fought, they need something that takes a group to kill.
Thus they need an opponent (or group thereof) which does more damage than one character can survive, has more health than one character can burn through, has specific mechanics requiring multiple players - or some combination thereof. Thus is born the boss encounter.
And how do players deal with that? Well, I'm sure it was easy to fall back on the model provided by D&D. You get a tough "front line" that can take/avoid damage better than most (fighters), you get healer support to mitigate the damage (clerics), and you get damage-dealers who focus on output more than either of the others (mages). The D&D model also had the skill-heavy rogues, but because CRPGs have a hard time modeling neat things like climbing walls, picking locks, and disarming traps as a major gameplay element, they more or less were rolled into damage-dealing with a slightly different (melee) flavor.
And there you have it, the "holy trinity" of MMORPG classes: tank, healer, and dps.
So what's wrong with it?
Well, I think a lot of people complain about it simply because it is a "norm" of MMORPG design. I find that only semi-valid. Innovation can be good, but change simply for the sake of change usually isn't. And some people just want to be able to do everything themselves - which I find somewhat iffy again. What's the point of a game being MMO if there's absolutely no grouping required for any of the content?*
That's not to say there aren't legitimate concerns, though. This model usually locks a character into one role at any given time. Some games allow for switching between roles with varying levels of complexity, but you still only get to be one role at a time. And doing solo content between group activities can be a pain when your character is built up as a healer.
The roles generally require learning different things. Some might actually consider that a positive, but I'm going to log it as a negative since I think it falls there more fittingly. When I switch specs with my paladin in WoW, there's a fair bit of disorientation. The Protection (tank) build simply plays differently than the Retribution (dps) build. So if you want to be good at more than one thing, there's a higher learning curve, and that's a pain. In some cases, it's a lot of a pain as you may need to seek out whole new sets of gear, pay for additional skills, and whatever else in addition to time spent learning.
Roles are not equally expected or favored. Ratios might be different elsewhere, but WoW has evolved around certain group sizes. In 5-man groups, one healer and one tank are expected. In 10-man, 2 tanks and 2-3 healers. In 25-man, usually only 3 tanks and 5 healers. From LFG queue data, it's obvious that most people play DPS characters. Healers and (even moreso) tanks are in a minority. I can't say whether that's because of what people prefer to play or because of the demand ratios, but there is a definite imbalance that makes things difficult. And if people want to play together, but don't have the "right" mix of character builds, someone has to compromise.
So what's the alternative?
I have yet to see an alternative that I really liked and felt satisfied with.
Guild Wars... has healing, and some need for focused healers, but tanking is limited as there's almost no way to control mob aggro. PVE combat lacks a lot of the tactical coordination I've seen elsewhere simply because things don't work that way. They only real tactics there are how you put together builds - the synergy between certain skills, and through most PVE content, even that doesn't much matter. Grab an NPC healer or two (or player healers, if they're available) and you're off. To me, that gameplay is lacking appeal.
GW2 promises to do away with healers as well, by forcing players to take at least one (I'm unclear on if you're limited to one max, or just minimum) healing skill. It sounds good on paper, and gameplay videos look interesting, but I'm concerned it'll end up playing much like the first one, just with less need to actually group up.
The GW/GW2 approach also makes me remember a scene from The Incredibles where the villain explains: once everyone is special, no one is. I take a certain amount of pride at being good at what I do, and losing that niche makes for one less aspect of a game that I'm invested in as a player.
I understand Runescape is class-less, but I haven't ever played, so I can't really speak to it past that. As I've also seen it described as possessing a "soul-crushing grind," I probably will continue to pass on it.
That appeals more to some people who are not me, I guess. And maybe it can be done in a way that will appeal to me, but I haven't seen it yet.
Conclusion
Aieee. Compelling game design is actually hard and people have differing expectations? Say it isn't so!
* Tangentially related, I read a recent post over at Massively about some concerns over the design of SWTOR. A lot of what's been said indicates very little of the game will "require" grouping, and given player tendencies - anything that can be done solo usually will. The game may be more like a KOTOR you can play with friends or do very specific group activities in (which isn't a terrible concept in itself, but misses the point of being an MMO, in my opinion). But they've also said a vast majority of the game isn't instanced, so... maybe those concerns are unfounded. It's still too early to tell.
I don't have special insights into the minds of game developers, but some things are not hard to imagine.
They get an MMORPG together and think "Okay, now what?" They could leave it all solo-oriented, but then what's really the point of it being massively-multiplayer? So they want to encourage group play. That means putting in challenges that players can't readily do alone. Since most "challenges" in such games are enemies to be fought, they need something that takes a group to kill.
Thus they need an opponent (or group thereof) which does more damage than one character can survive, has more health than one character can burn through, has specific mechanics requiring multiple players - or some combination thereof. Thus is born the boss encounter.
And how do players deal with that? Well, I'm sure it was easy to fall back on the model provided by D&D. You get a tough "front line" that can take/avoid damage better than most (fighters), you get healer support to mitigate the damage (clerics), and you get damage-dealers who focus on output more than either of the others (mages). The D&D model also had the skill-heavy rogues, but because CRPGs have a hard time modeling neat things like climbing walls, picking locks, and disarming traps as a major gameplay element, they more or less were rolled into damage-dealing with a slightly different (melee) flavor.
And there you have it, the "holy trinity" of MMORPG classes: tank, healer, and dps.
So what's wrong with it?
Well, I think a lot of people complain about it simply because it is a "norm" of MMORPG design. I find that only semi-valid. Innovation can be good, but change simply for the sake of change usually isn't. And some people just want to be able to do everything themselves - which I find somewhat iffy again. What's the point of a game being MMO if there's absolutely no grouping required for any of the content?*
That's not to say there aren't legitimate concerns, though. This model usually locks a character into one role at any given time. Some games allow for switching between roles with varying levels of complexity, but you still only get to be one role at a time. And doing solo content between group activities can be a pain when your character is built up as a healer.
The roles generally require learning different things. Some might actually consider that a positive, but I'm going to log it as a negative since I think it falls there more fittingly. When I switch specs with my paladin in WoW, there's a fair bit of disorientation. The Protection (tank) build simply plays differently than the Retribution (dps) build. So if you want to be good at more than one thing, there's a higher learning curve, and that's a pain. In some cases, it's a lot of a pain as you may need to seek out whole new sets of gear, pay for additional skills, and whatever else in addition to time spent learning.
Roles are not equally expected or favored. Ratios might be different elsewhere, but WoW has evolved around certain group sizes. In 5-man groups, one healer and one tank are expected. In 10-man, 2 tanks and 2-3 healers. In 25-man, usually only 3 tanks and 5 healers. From LFG queue data, it's obvious that most people play DPS characters. Healers and (even moreso) tanks are in a minority. I can't say whether that's because of what people prefer to play or because of the demand ratios, but there is a definite imbalance that makes things difficult. And if people want to play together, but don't have the "right" mix of character builds, someone has to compromise.
So what's the alternative?
I have yet to see an alternative that I really liked and felt satisfied with.
Guild Wars... has healing, and some need for focused healers, but tanking is limited as there's almost no way to control mob aggro. PVE combat lacks a lot of the tactical coordination I've seen elsewhere simply because things don't work that way. They only real tactics there are how you put together builds - the synergy between certain skills, and through most PVE content, even that doesn't much matter. Grab an NPC healer or two (or player healers, if they're available) and you're off. To me, that gameplay is lacking appeal.
GW2 promises to do away with healers as well, by forcing players to take at least one (I'm unclear on if you're limited to one max, or just minimum) healing skill. It sounds good on paper, and gameplay videos look interesting, but I'm concerned it'll end up playing much like the first one, just with less need to actually group up.
The GW/GW2 approach also makes me remember a scene from The Incredibles where the villain explains: once everyone is special, no one is. I take a certain amount of pride at being good at what I do, and losing that niche makes for one less aspect of a game that I'm invested in as a player.
I understand Runescape is class-less, but I haven't ever played, so I can't really speak to it past that. As I've also seen it described as possessing a "soul-crushing grind," I probably will continue to pass on it.
That appeals more to some people who are not me, I guess. And maybe it can be done in a way that will appeal to me, but I haven't seen it yet.
Conclusion
Aieee. Compelling game design is actually hard and people have differing expectations? Say it isn't so!
* Tangentially related, I read a recent post over at Massively about some concerns over the design of SWTOR. A lot of what's been said indicates very little of the game will "require" grouping, and given player tendencies - anything that can be done solo usually will. The game may be more like a KOTOR you can play with friends or do very specific group activities in (which isn't a terrible concept in itself, but misses the point of being an MMO, in my opinion). But they've also said a vast majority of the game isn't instanced, so... maybe those concerns are unfounded. It's still too early to tell.
Minecraft is MMO in the sense that multiple people can play on a server, but if you just wanna dig in your own sandbox you can do that too. A recent trend might be less an MMORPG and instead just a CRPG that people can interact with you if you let them (GW1 had that to an extent what with the world being instanced except for cities). GW2 seems to be akin to playing an action RPG, like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance or Kingdom Hearts, that your friends can play alongside you.
ReplyDeleteHeh. Yeah, I actually wrote this before http://www.reallifecomics.com/archive/110224.html so I wasn't thinking of Minecraft. Then again, my personal play with Minecraft has been solo anyway. >.> Guild Wars is... sort of a step up from Diablo+BattleNet. The outposts are more graphically-oriented than the forum (I know there's a more proper term here, but it eludes me) where people could trade and arrange to group. And there are more PVP options available. AND... well, it's all hosted remotely, you can't just play it disconnected. To me, that misses almost all the highlights of what an MMO can be. Honestly, I still see most of GW's "uniqueness" as coming from PVP origin concepts. The lack of readily-managable threat/aggro. The way you make a build with eight skills out of tons. Collision physics. Pretty much all the mechanics of how the game works seem designed toward real-person conflicts. Which gets into a whole 'nother tangent of its own... And that direction of development isn't bad, per se, but... if you're going to make a linear storyline with limited cooperative play, why go through the trouble of calling it an MMO and shouldering hosting-side financial obligations? That seems like a silly way to do things to me, but I guess it is working for a lot of companies that manage to sell enough cosmetic/fluff items, so... I suppose I shouldn't argue.
ReplyDeleteFor a long time, Guild Wars didn't have 'fluff items', it was doing just fine on sales of the game alone. The fluff items mostly go to finance the current design teams who are making things like costumes and such -- the game itself is viable, and still selling boxes regularly. The thing is, I liked Guild Wars for the setting, and played a lot of it solo -- I wasn't interested in hooking up with strangers, but I didn't mind hooking up with the odd person I knew once in a while. I think it struck the right balance between 'solo play' and 'group play'. And that's just it -- I don't see anything wrong with making an MMO you can play solo (and beat solo). Making it so you must rely on others to finish the game basically makes it a 'you play our way or else' sort of thing, and that rubs me the wrong way. Having the option (solo or group) I think works better -- if someone is feeling antisocial for whatever reason, they can still progress in the campaign, and if they're feeling in the mood to hang with a group, they can. To me, the 'point' of an MMO is the choice of playing with others.
ReplyDeleteGuild Wars has since its inception been about PvP (as the title even suggests) and until it had been out for a while and there was a strong enough PvE community clamoring for more content outside of their arenas.
ReplyDeleteAnd your point is wrong, from a design stand point. Massively-Multiplayer means that. Masses of players in the same game. to encourage playing together, there are things that cannot be done alone. A lot of games initially put that as their focus. Hell, World of Warcraft was going to also be PvP all the time instead of optional, however they had enough savvy to see the trend of PvE content and broke the game between those two aspects. They also (in later expansions) worked on a stronger solo storytelling experience for people who, like you, think MMO's should have a choice about grouping or not. However, if you still want the best gear and to experience all the content in the game, you'll need some friends.
ReplyDeleteFortunately, in GW2, you won't need to hook up with anyone for 'best gear' or content. The story mode you can do all by yourself if you're inclined, and can even do it multiple times with different paths each time you play it. At the end, you get your gear of choice. The public content is, if I'm not mistaken, completely optional. You may need to run from point A to point B to get to the proper town or what-have-you, but I don't think you actually need to do any of it to continue the campaign. Come to think of that -- I actually like that. The campaign arc is all yours, and the environment is open to the public -- and optional. I think that finds the right balance for me. For me, 'Massive Multiplayer' just means there's a bunch of people around. Nothing more.
ReplyDeleteThe fluff items mostly go to finance the current design teams who are making things like costumes and such -- the game itself is viable, and still selling boxes regularly. I would love to see the financial data that proves that (partly because it's an insight into the industry that I'd find fascinating either way). Short of that, I don't think you'll ever convince me that box sales alone of a game that's three and a half years old (at it's most recent box release, EotN) is supporting all the servers and staff behind the game. Not that I'm saying there aren't any box sales, just that the numbers are nowhere near what they were. The take for ongoing microtransations, on the other hand, is so much that I find it impossible to believe they're only using that money for designing and implimenting shop items. I would even wager that's were a good bit of the money for GW2 development is coming from. And I don't just say this as a shot against the GW/ArenaNet team or anything. DDO officials have said their game brings in more money since dropping required monthly subscriptions and adding microtransactions - probably because they picked up a bunch of new users, but the box sales alone are a one-time thing. And I think it might be physically impossible for Blizzard to spend all the money it rakes in from one in-shop pet on just making more things for their shop.
ReplyDeleteAlways a matter of opinion, of course, but I'd rather buy that as a single-player game with online networking capability (along the lines of Neverwinter Nights) than as an MMO. Having to run the game off remote servers is an unnecessary (if all the campaign is meant to be single-player) hassle for the player and requires more infrastructure and support costs for the company.
ReplyDelete