Indeed. Very well said. My college BFA is in computer animation, emphasizing film (Pixar is our inspiration and mentor). I have a hard time enjoying movies, since I’m always either trying to figure out how they did things or criticizing dumb choices. It’s just a reflex, born of training and a deep interest in making things better.

I’m currently working in games because I refuse to live in California (for various reasons), and I have a similar reflex for this industry. My training is merely lifelong experience as a player (I remember Pong as a child, and Atari Bowling set the hook), and a bit of common sense and observation, perhaps tempered by my film training.

My biggest complaint about games and film is that they just don’t reach for their potential, especially games. Too many developers are content to play to the GTA ADHD crowd, because that’s where the money is. I can’t pragmatically condemn them too much, as it’s notoriously hard to make money either as an artist or as someone of morals and ethics… but it is supremely disappointing. High standards in technical, artistic, moral and ethical design should be the goal, not reaching the top of the sales charts and making millions.

Even so, I do have an optimist’s eye for some things. I think that there are designers out there that do want to make amazing game worlds, and I think that given the tools, we could easily make huge strides in game design and theory. The current socioeconomic landscape is sadly more amenable to those willing to dwell in the gutters, rather than those who seek to scale the cliffs. Making truly uplifting and incredible work is fighting inertia in most cases, but especially so in entertainment. It’s possible, and I think that there are those who want to do so… it’s just difficult.

Erm… to tie this back into the topic at hand, I do think it’s healthy to “grow” out of MMOs, whether it’s specific titles or as a genre. It’s part of the maturation (again, using the proper definition) of the gaming industry and the population. It’s sort of like how people grow out of Final Fantasy and branch out into Valkyrie Profile, or grow out of science fiction into science fact. It’s part of the learning curve, and as Kristian suggests, it’s likely a good thing not to get stuck playing the same game forever. It’s also healthy for the industry, as competition can drive innovation, and deeper social integration of games (driven by gamers aging and pushing the industry to new heights) can help fight the stigma of games being puerile, shallow pursuits. Of course, designers need to make sure that their work isn’t puerile, but if they believe that there’s a market for more noble design, they will rise to the occasion.

Looking forward, I firmly believe that the “cash cow” subscription mentality of MMOs is a detriment to such progress, as it benefits most from static worlds and addicted sheeple. I expect to see innovation in the genre from the Guild Wars sector of the industry, rather than the WoW/EQ pedigree.

I think a better analogy for MMOs would be the human relationship, whether friendly or romantic. I suspect that many of the people who struggle with finding a balance in MMOs may have the same trouble finding a balance in relationships. It’s hard to grow and accept that others may not grow in the same direction that we do. It’s hard to accept that an MMO will not always accommodate us and make us the center of the universe. We take the good with the bad, or we find another more suitable partner, or we go miserable trying to succeed in an impossible situation.

I agree that if we could meld together the adaptability of a platform like second life with the game play of, say, WoW that would change this discussion since the world itself would be adaptable. To date though that has not happened. Maybe that is for the good as well. Remember the days of buying a video game, playing it until the “end” and moving on. Do you really WANT to play WoW, LoTR, EQ2, Vanguard, etc… forever?

That’s a great question that we all need to eventually ask ourselves in the absence of any real alternatives that provide serious innovations and potential. Personally that’s where I am with WoW right now. I feel with WoW that I’m just a bystander in Chris Metzen’s grand storyline. I honestly feel no connection to the story at all. I’d much rather be part of a virtual world where I have a chance to shape it in some small way instead of indulging in the shallow achievements of geting bigger shoulders or more gold in my bank account.

Kristian I’ve been playing MMO’s for almost 10 years now and I’m thoroughly fed up and burned out by them. Eventually most people will reach that point — even those stalwart 10 million WoW subscribers out there.

MMO’s rarely challenge me nor do they inspire me anymore. I find blogs about MMO’s and game design far more stimulating and rewarding then actually playing the games themselves. That could be because I fancy myself as a creator more then a player. Good designers should never be happy playing games as that breeds complacency. Instead they should always be striving to make things better by viewing everything with a critical eye.

Since I truly hate complaining (i.e. talk is cheap) about the state of MMO’s all the time via this blog I would be willing to put my money where my mouth is to be part of the solution. Personally speaking, my only recourse has been to work in the video game industry long enough to get the credibility to get hired and work for a serious MMO — but there very few options for that in Seattle right now.

Your comments about the anonymity of the Internet and the aversion of MMO companies (investors) to the idea of risk are spot on. There are a great many ways to make MMO’s and virtual worlds more interesting and rich yet it may never happen due to the timidity of the current mindset in the industry. With the current costs of MMO’s being $50+ million dollars we may never see the MMO of our dreams come into existence. Instead we get the sanitized, safe and McHappy Meal gaming (and the game part is becoming trivial at best these days) experience of WoW. No freedom and zero accountability.

I also like your comments regarding the lack of skill that is required to succeed in a MMO like WoW. Only at the very highest levels of play is there any semblance of skill and that skill is purely one of figuring out how to max out your DPS. It’s just too bad that the skill of DPS has overshadowed all other skills that one might need in a virtual world.

Right now I think one of the most dangerous things a company like Blizzard is doing is giving players a sense of entitlement. Future MMO’s will be adversely affected by what Blizzard does as it will set up a perfect storm of expectations by future players — sadly most of them bad ones. Each day I read the official WoW forums and I read an increasing number of posts from players who feel that they should not have to even level at all and how respeccing should be free. Blizzard has caved in at almost every opportunity over the past 4 years and it’s only going to get worse in Wrath of the Lich King.

In an age of convenience-driven MMO’s, players want virtual worlds to adjust to them instead of them adjusting to virtual worlds. The importance of consistency and rules seems to be almost lost on the developers who should know better.

EvE would be a contender as an MMO you could “graduate” to.. if there was anything like it. Nothing prepares you for it, and it’s definitely not for everyone.

Although I’m not really into sci-fi I’ve heard many good things about Eve. I really need to get out of my fantasy RPG comfort zone and give it a try. Thanks for the tip!

That said.. I’m not sure whether graduation in MMOs goes from less complex to more complex. Ultima Online is heralded as one of the first modern MMORPGs (MUDs being the “classic” MMORPGs), and had many quite ambitious features, like a working ecology, persistent world where you could trade, build and PvP freely. MUDs were even more complex, and have more game mechanics that you can shake a stick at. Everquest was less complex than UO, and WoW was less complex than Everquest. Instead of expanding the feature set, developers are working on reducing it. They’re not inventing new formulas, they’re refining the existing one into perfection.

I don’t think that complexity is necessarily a good thing — that goes for most kinds of art. I’m a big fan of minimalism “less is more” school of thought. However, I would argue for more sophisticated MMO’s. The more I think about WoW, the more I’m convinced that it’s aimed directly at tweens and teenagers.

…If everyone imitates WoW and then something (like burnout) happens that turns people away from WoW-style theme park games, the MMO industry is going to be devastated. Bartle’s reviled remark of shutting down WoW was an attempt to remind people of the dangers of monoculture. WoW won’t be around forever, and the sooner the industry understands it, the better.

Good points Shalkis. After Blizzard gets done with WoW the MMO genre will not even be recognizable from the MMO’s of 10 years ago with UO/EQ/AC. I too am worried that the video game industry is putting all it’s eggs in the same basket by adopting the WoW model. It has the potential of causing mass burnout. I’m not sure how much longer people are going to tolerate the FedEx quest driven MMO gameplay.

Thanks for the mention of Richard Bartle’s comments regarding closing down WoW. There was a major MMO gaming blog site that really took umbrage at his comments a while back. Of course they failed to grasp what he was saying. We are lucky that we have a true visionary like Bartle that is like a voice in the wilderness that puts the MMO industry to shame every now and then.

You will never have truly “mature” (the dictionary definition) gameplay without the players stepping up to the responsibility inherent in such. That’s what being an adult is about; taking responsibility and doing the right thing, even if (or especially if) it’s not the first impulse.

That mini-rant aside, I completely agree that players are clamoring for the chance to affect the world, to mark the terrain, as it were. I don’t disagree with the premise, it’s just that you can’t have that realistically work without a vast majority of players who treat that power responsibly. “With great power…” and all that. Giving players power to really change the world is a heady aphrodesiac, but a dangerous one, especially if the Killers find it a fun place to play. As such, there will always have to be laws and constraints. The jerks that the internet invites will always constrain the game design.

It may be possible to have “heavily affected” instanced servers concepted as Alternate Universe sorts of experiences, but then you’d need to have several, and have free transfers, if someone wants to get away from a hostile environment. Such a multiverse may be cool; server A shows the Klingons conquering the universe, while over on server C, the Breen have absorbed the Federation into a Fascist state and use Cardassian bureaucrats to evangelize the Delta Quadrant. If a player gets tired of the politics of server C, they can migrate to server A for some mindless military conquest. Could all of those play nice in the same universe? Maybe, but having instanced “universes” can allow wilder shifts in power, and allow more people to actually make a difference. It’s a different mindset from a “mainstream MMO” with any and all in the same world, but again, there has to be a way to choke off the abuses. AU mechanics might provide that tighter level of control (jerks can’t sully the whole universe, just their Mirror, Mirror Universe)… at the obvious cost of higher maintenance overhead and GM oversight.

On the dev side, I do think that corporate interests and shareholders have game devs in uncomfortable places, and are stifling innovation. Giving players power is risky, and requires not only in-game laws and carefully considered design, but constant vigilance to keep abuses from getting out of hand. “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” or something like that. Tightwad suits aren’t interested in giving the player power, they want to provide the illusion of choice and power, while limiting it as much as possible, to reduce risk. Risk is anathema to board members, especially as a company gets bigger. As I noted above, it also gets more expensive to maintain so that things don’t get out of hand, and that cuts into profits more.

Also, as time goes on, I do think that the subscription model will be a liability. Yes, it fosters addiction and a connection to the “investment” in the game, but that connection breeds a sense of entitlement that makes change harder to enact. (Must… resist… obvious… economic… parallels…)

One discussion I had over on the YPP forums posited a game world that was “instanced over time”. Periodic gameworld wipes brought everyone back to ground zero, and players would start playing as the “next generation” of the world’s inhabitants (with concurrent bonuses for subscribing through a wipe, say an heirloom weapon or a land grant, whatever). The world would be changed by the previous generation (geographically, politically, whatever), but the wipe would bring things back to a gameplay parity. The generational world lore would be effectively written by the players, but things would never be allowed to get too out of hand, since even despots can’t resist the mighty wipe. Players who got sick of Oober the Underhanded’s rule of terror could take steps to cut him off before he rose to power in the next generation.

It’s almost like playing Starcraft repeatedly on the same map, but shuffling around the starting positions and races (and even map elements), but keeping the players behind the keyboard. Each round requires new tactics from the players, and there’s not much time for someone to get too burned out by always being in a losing position. (Though the analogy is simple, it does illustrate the concept of periodic change.)

Coming back around a bit, to be pithy about it, the next step after “graduating” from an MMO is to go to that crazy ultimate MMRPG, Real Life. Truth be told, we don’t really want our games to be like real life. They would cease to be games. I know, that’s taking the concept to the extreme position, but even as WoW demonstrates, an interesting world, stylized and fun to tinker in, will generate interest. Avoiding reality is at the heart of gaming in the first place.

Likewise, we don’t really want anarchy in our games, we want carefully controlled environments where we can learn and play without dealing with the inherent stupidity of real life and the idiots that make it so bad sometimes. (Another Raph Koster premise, if memory serves: “Fun is learning in a safe environment”.) We want controlled environments, since they are more easily “learned” and mastered. We like the sense of mastery, especially as the real world comes unhinged.

…apologies for the wall of text. I’ve thought about this a lot, and the Explorer in me just isn’t satisfied with current games. I also tend to write too much… but there are a lot of tangents to explore with this one, talking about a “next generation” MMO that takes the actual core design and tries to make the heart of the experience better, not just add blood, higher res textures and a new combat system. *casts a baleful eye at AoC*