Bartle: Online games suck and will only get worse

[Phred]

Those that dislike instanced zones probably never had to spend time in early guk or solb in everquest, and haven't tried city of heros either. Instances can add to a MMOG in my opinion, as it helps with the immersion if done properly. When was the last time you read about a stalwart band of heros going to a dungeon and finding it camped from one end to the other? They don't. They go explore the dungeon as a group and have adventures in it. It's too bad SOE is too cheap to put any effort into their instanced dungeons, which are all as dull as dishwater in the last 3 expansions. If they put the kind of effort into their instances as they did in the original dungeons it would kick ass. COH to me is instances done right. Not so much the city zones though they do help the lag that thousands of people standing around would cause (see early AO for example) but the missions are well designed, focused adventures, many with good goals and bosses to fight.

[Raph]

The bottom line for me though is that MUD != MMOG != Virtual World != Sandbox. I don't think we should be using the terms interchangeably, and that doing so has created a LOT of problems and confusion.

He's trying to use "virtual world" as an umbrella term. Everyone here is reading into that.

I try to use "online world" as an umbrella term, because MMORPG, MMOG, and all the others don't do that.

We badly need an umbrella term because stupid discussions keep happening where people misunderstand one another. 80%+ of the design decisions one makes in all variants of online world are the same. The differences between "sandbox world" and "directed game" are really minor relative to the rest of the work you go to.

But every time I make that point, the discussion degenerates. MMOGs and MUDs really ARE 80% identical. Probably more, actually. Then the thread derails on how it's not so, usually stated by people who haven't built either from scratch, much less both.

[Raph]

One of problems as I see it, is a lot of "old school" mud types like Bartle, Raph, and even McQuaid, were introduced to the concept of these online games as sprawling virtual worlds with heavy RP and sandbox elements as a mainly socially interactive form of entertainment, with a small, self selecting player base.  The game portions of those text mud were very very limited.

Uh, no.

Bartle's MUD1 was a scavenger hunt game with full PvP and worldwide resets.

I cut my teeth on DikuMUDs, which were hack n slash games with significant questing elements. They featured no crafting or sandbox elements.

Brad was a hardcore Sojourn player. Sojourn was basically hack n slash Forgotten Realms.

as Ive said before, I don't believe that is what most current mmorpg players are looking for; they want a good game with world elements b/c that is where their backgrounds are coming from

And here you assume that the folks who played and mad etext muds didn't have that single-player background either. That's also probably false--I'll put my single-player game background up against anyone's. :)

I could just as easily say that the reason why most mmorpg players aren't looking for the world aspects is because they haven't played online enough to get a clue yet. I don't say it because it's unfair.

[Calandryll]

We should be making these games for our players … and the only way to know what they want is do to research.

.

What about the fact that different players often enjoy totally different things in games. What do you do when one group of players wants A and another wants B in your game? What about the fact that players don't know if they like something that they have yet to experience - how do you create something new if you're only going off what your research tells you the players want?

If games are truly an art form, they must come from individual vision, not trying to please an audience. Any great movie is not made aiming to please an audience - that motivation just leads to more formulaic recycling of the same old stuff in new packages. A great novel is written from a personal idea, not going off a focus group. Make something great and the audience will come. Aim to give an audience what you think they want, and you may produce something decent, but probably nothing truly exceptional.

As I said, you don't let the research dictate the entire game. I'm not saying we should create bunch charts and graphs and just say "well, the charts say players want a medieval fantasy world with floating islands and three-headed dogs ... quick, let's make that!"

While game design is an art, games are also a consumer product. The research is an important and useful component to that.

[Xilren's Twin]

Bartle's MUD1 was a scavenger hunt game with full PvP and worldwide resets.

I cut my teeth on DikuMUDs, which were hack n slash games with significant questing elements. They featured no crafting or sandbox elements.

Brad was a hardcore Sojourn player. Sojourn was basically hack n slash Forgotten Realms.

Yes, and I submit that the average video game player trying those text only muds would come away with a distinct "meh" feeling.  That's why I beleive that weren't very good "games"; their appeal was very narrow mainly due to the medium of the day.  The barriers muds presented to even getting started were pretty high which is why you has small, self selecting audiences.

I could just as easily say that the reason why most mmorpg players aren't looking for the world aspects is because they haven't played online enough to get a clue yet. I don't say it because it's unfair.

Um, didn't we just cover the short term bad long term good parts of design earlier in this thread?

Besides, if the players are clueless, guess who's going to need to give them those clues based on the introductory game experience?  You want to tell me the new player experience of both UO and SWG on release made it easier for players new to the genre to learn the ins and outs of it?

Xilren

[Calandryll]

The bottom line for me though is that MUD != MMOG != Virtual World != Sandbox. I don't think we should be using the terms interchangeably, and that doing so has created a LOT of problems and confusion.

He's trying to use "virtual world" as an umbrella term. Everyone here is reading into that.

I try to use "online world" as an umbrella term, because MMORPG, MMOG, and all the others don't do that.

We badly need an umbrella term because stupid discussions keep happening where people misunderstand one another. 80%+ of the design decisions one makes in all variants of online world are the same. The differences between "sandbox world" and "directed game" are really minor relative to the rest of the work you go to.

But every time I make that point, the discussion degenerates. MMOGs and MUDs really ARE 80% identical. Probably more, actually. Then the thread derails on how it's not so, usually stated by people who haven't built either from scratch, much less both.

No argument that an umbrella term is important. And I also agree that all of these types of online worlds do have very similar components. I am in no way saying that MUDs have nothing to offer MMOGs or that they have nothing in common. Of course they do.  But, even if we agree that they are 80% the same, that means they are 20% different. And I do believe that 20% difference is significant, which is why I made that comment.

I hope I am not coming across like I am arguing semantics. I'm trying to think of an analogy to express what I meant by that comment and I hope this one works. One could say that a sports car and an SUV are 80% the same (they both have 4 wheels, an engine, a dashboard, seats, windows, the same basic user-interface, are built on an assembly line in much the same manner, etc.) and that they both fall under the umbrella term "automobile". But the 20% that isn't the same makes for a fairly significant difference in the product, the services they provide, and the consumers interested in them. Something that works perfectly in an SUV may horribly "break" a sports car.

The distinction is important, even though they are very similar. And I think while using an umbrella term when discussing online worlds is a good thing, one must also be willing to discuss the differences. Too often I don't see that.

That said, you are right that this issue certainly wasn't the point of Richard's article and that it does often derail threads. I also want to make it clear that whether they are the same or not wasn't the basis for my previous posts either.

[Raph]

I think while using an umbrella term when discussing online worlds is a good thing, one must also be willing to discuss the differences. Too often I don't see that.

All I am saying is that knowing Richard, when he says "virtual world" he almost certainly does not mean "simulation-based sandbox-oriented online world," even though most posters here and at corpnews seem to have taken it that way. That isn't even his bias as a designer, near as I can tell. So everyone is saying "see, he's biased to SUVs, and he writes the whole thing from that perspective!" and I am trying to say that no, he really does mean "automobile" there.

I think there's plenty of willingness to discuss the differences... seems like the differences is what most people point out (cf Xilren) without considering the similarities.

For example, take Bartle's point about travel--probably the least controversial one he made (I disagree with him on permadeath, for the most part):

Teleporting helps people connect with their friends.
Teleporting helps people get to the experiences they want to get to.
Teleporting helps people who have little time to play.

Teleporting hurts people connecting with people they don't know.
Teleporting hurts people bumping into new experiences.
Teleporting hurts people who want "locality" in the game (for example, local economies, local items, local culture)

All of these are true regardless of the type of online world we're talking about. Some of them have different weight depending on the type of world, though. In a social world, almost all the negatives are outweighed pretty severely. In a game world, it's kind of a mixed bag. In a world intended for immersion, I'd argue that the balance tips somewhat against teleporting--not by much, though.

Saying that it all boils down to "fun" is reductionist of both people and fun.

I submit that the average video game player trying those text only muds would come away with a distinct "meh" feeling

I am unsure what that has to do with anything. You're changing the subject. Your statement was that those muds lacked game elements. That is demonstrably untrue. Many of them have more complex and challenging games than any of the MMORPGs. The fact that those games aren't flashy or easy to get into has nothing to do with your idea that "the designers who played them were mostly social types" or whatever.

Um, didn't we just cover the short term bad long term good parts of design earlier in this thread?

Heh, I hadn't seen my comment in that light, but you are of course correct. :)

Besides, if the players are clueless, guess who's going to need to give them those clues based on the introductory game experience? You want to tell me the new player experience of both UO and SWG on release made it easier for players new to the genre to learn the ins and outs of it?

Of course it is the designer's job. And demonstrably, those games DO in fact do so MUCH MUCH better than the text muds did. All the MMORPGs do. I think it's obvious that SWG's introductory experience is better than the original intro experiences in UO or EQ... If it weren't more accessible in general, the rate of growth of online worlds wouldn't be outpacing the rate of growth of the Internet. But it is.

[Calandryll]

All of these are true regardless of the type of online world we're talking about. Some of them have different weight depending on the type of world, though. In a social world, almost all the negatives are outweighed pretty severely. In a game world, it's kind of a mixed bag. In a world intended for immersion, I'd argue that the balance tips somewhat against teleporting--not by much, though.

Well, we're pretty much on the same page then. Again, my disagreement with his assertions on the first page of this thread had nothing to do with this issue anyway.

I still think "short-term bad, long-term good" designs are poor (the short term effects on a game are incredibly important in a subscriber based game) and that perma-death fails both the short-term and the long-term test and is generally a bad idea. :)

[Xilren's Twin]

I submit that the average video game player trying those text only muds would come away with a distinct "meh" feeling

I am unsure what that has to do with anything. You're changing the subject. Your statement was that those muds lacked game elements. That is demonstrably untrue. Many of them have more complex and challenging games than any of the MMORPGs. The fact that those games aren't flashy or easy to get into has nothing to do with your idea that "the designers who played them were mostly social types" or whatever.

Im not being very clear.  What I mean to say is not that there weren't any game elemnts, just that my perception of them was they those elements were not particularly compelling games.  Consider EQ's predecessor the Diku mud; was that text based hack and slash really that good a game?  I'd say no; god know's eq's combat wasn't and that at least has eye candy to look at.  Reading about you toon unloading a can or whoopass on poor npc ai is slightly above watching paint dry in terms of fun factor.  Therefore, my impression is the main appeal of muds what the rp and social elements, not the "game systems" imbedded in the worlds.  Another part of that impression come from the your development of UO and SWG and the kinds of approach they took, plus what I read into Bartle's comments. That make more sense?

Xilren

[Resvrgam]

"Focus groups are worthless."  At this year's GDC I got to hear this sentiment being preeched by many a jaded Play-Tester and Game Designer.

Since many MMOGs don't even hire Play-Testers into their projects, the end result is usually neither a game designed for what an audience wants nor a game with a unified, creative vision.  I guess the Slot-Machine prinsiple is the easiest business model to maintain instead of actually making something people play into oblivion and still find fun in it: like old 16-bit era games, chess, sports, etc.

I think it should be a responsibility of the developer to sit down and actually play their own product for hours on end before they shovel it off to the masses (or at least hire people to tell them what sucks: Play-Testers).  Instead, we're seeing recycled formulae from an old title rehashed to wring as much profit as possible from it before it's completely exhausted (and that area of the market is dried up).  

Fanboys, Focus Groups and demographic research are hardly a suitable substitute for good ol' fashioned "playing."   If I couldn't stomach something I designed for a projected period of time, how can I expect others to?

[Calandryll]

"Focus groups are worthless."  At this year's GDC I got to hear this sentiment being preeched by many a jaded Play-Tester and Game Designer.

Since many MMOGs don't even hire Play-Testers into their projects, the end result is usually neither a game designed for what an audience wants nor a game with a unified, creative vision.  I guess the Slot-Machine prinsiple is the easiest business model to maintain instead of actually making something people play into oblivion and still find fun in it: like old 16-bit era games, chess, sports, etc.

I think it should be a responsibility of the developer to sit down and actually play their own product for hours on end before they shovel it off to the masses (or at least hire people to tell them what sucks: Play-Testers).  Instead, we're seeing recycled formulae from an old title rehashed to wring as much profit as possible from it before it's completely exhausted (and that area of the market is dried up).  

Fanboys, Focus Groups and demographic research are hardly a suitable substitute for good ol' fashioned "playing."   If I couldn't stomach something I designed for a projected period of time, how can I expect others to?

I'd submit to you that anyone who says focus groups and research are worthless either hasn't been involved in one or has been involved where they were used incorrectly. And nobody is saying that market research replaces anything (not sure where that came from).

Before I came to the games industry I used to work for a variety of consumer product companies. During that time I've seen focus groups and research take a mediocre product and turn it into a huge hit and I've seen focus groups and research derail a good product into quite a mess. It's all in how you gather and use the information. If you let these things drive the product you're dead. But if you ignore the feedback or don't even bother to get it, you're probably missing an opportunity.

And just for the record, play testing is a type of focus group.

[Kyper]

Reading about you toon unloading a can or whoopass on poor npc ai is slightly above watching paint dry in terms of fun factor.  Therefore, my impression is the main appeal of muds what the rp and social elements, not the "game systems" imbedded in the worlds.
Xilren

Not true.  At least not for LPMuds and DikuMuds.  They were nearly all about combat, not RP.  That doesn't mean there was no RP, but the LPs and Dikus I played were highly achiever oriented: levels, quests and gear.  

MOOs, MUSHes and other types of MUDS were primarily oriented toward RP and socializing.

[Raph]

What I mean to say is not that there weren't any game elemnts, just that my perception of them was they those elements were not particularly compelling games. Consider EQ's predecessor the Diku mud; was that text based hack and slash really that good a game? I'd say no; god know's eq's combat wasn't and that at least has eye candy to look at. Reading about you toon unloading a can or whoopass on poor npc ai is slightly above watching paint dry in terms of fun factor.

In a well-done Diku, the combat was actually rather "twitchy." If I drop you into a high-level fight in Achaea (which isn't a Diku), I suspect you'll flounder and suck.

I think also that people conclude that just because they have mastered that gameplay, that the game is bad. Connect Four is not a bad game--most of us grow past it, but that's different. Do you feel that Doom is a bad game now because Half-Life exists? I don't.

So I would say yes, text-based hack n slash was a pretty good game--enough to pull in a million or more people over its lifetime. That's a pretty good record even by commercial standards.

Therefore, my impression is the main appeal of muds what the rp and social elements, not the "game systems" imbedded in the worlds. Another part of that impression come from the your development of UO and SWG and the kinds of approach they took, plus what I read into Bartle's comments. That make more sense?

It makes sense, but it isn't really accurate, that's all. As a player, I primarily played hack n slash games, with occasional diversions into social games such as LambdaMOO, TinyTIM, a few MUSHes... as a mud imp, my goal was to bring the roleplay richness of those environments to Diku gameplay--not the other way around. Arguably, Armageddon or Achaea do it better than anything I've done.

UO's original core team actually had on it people from all three major strains of mud development--Diku, LP, and MUSH/MOO. Half the core team, however, was Diku folks. The simulated ecology wasn't there in order to be cool or provide neat roleplay opportunities. It was an attempt to provide self-refreshing quests and things to kill. In other words, it served a Diku-style goal.

The fact that SWG's combat doesn't satisfy you is not from a lack of attention; it got and continues to get far more attention than most any system in the game.

[Megrim]

It makes sense, but it isn't really accurate, that's all. As a player, I primarily played hack n slash games, with occasional diversions into social games such as LambdaMOO, TinyTIM, a few MUSHes... as a mud imp, my goal was to bring the roleplay richness of those environments to Diku gameplay--not the other way around. Arguably, Armageddon or Achaea do it better than anything I've done.

See, this is what bothers me the most about MMOGs. Why does there now seem to be this artificial distinction about "role-playing" and "hack & slash"? As far as i know, ANY good book/film/etc.. (where i dare say the whole roleplaying thing comes from, especially books and stories) that's ever involved an adventure or some heroic deed has always been a combination of a rich world and some furious bunny-bashing. Certainly any PnP game i'v ever played has combined, or has tried to combine, the two.

But now, it's like people are incapable of developing a good combat system (be it fantasy/sci-fi/whatnot..) and also developing a heavily rp-able, social setting and combining the two. Or, rather, you get separate instances of the two types being developed but not the two togather. asdf =( So we get these convoluted theories about how there are "different types" of players, and so forth.

Which i think, in all seriousness, is bullshit. Given the opportunity people will play anything (as in a role) if it's interesting to play. Pidgeonholing people into categories and categorizing them into worlds that they'd "like" to play..?

siiiiiif (/counterstrike)

 - Meg

[Roac]

I still think "short-term bad, long-term good" designs are poor

You're being too general to make a decision.  How bad is bad, and how good is good?  Short term cost for long term gain may well be a viable decision.  Upfront costs for longterm rewards.

[rscott]

Well, its one thing to try to choose a generic catch all term,  but I think most terms we are familiar with have additional baggage.  Certainly i think virtual world has some baggage.  As does mmorpg, and mmog.  

Personally if he wants to be as generic as possible 'online game' seems the most flexible, with as little suppositions as possible.  But i think if he were to have used a truly generic term, his points would hold  even less water.

Some of his arguments are more universally applicable.  And the cases where they aren't, like instancing/permadeath, they make the most sense if you are in the camp that thinks of OGs as virtual worlds, and not as sandboxes.  I also suspect if perhaps he is not aware of the  1984-esque effect of how terminology shapes thinking.

[Shannow]

But now, it's like people are incapable of developing a good combat system (be it fantasy/sci-fi/whatnot..) and also developing a heavily rp-able, social setting and combining the two.

I played MUSH's that did both quite fine (Btech and trek ones come to mind). The problem lies in when you try to ramp those systems up to thousands of players at a time.

To be honest I think designers need to start designing games that actually utilize the 'massively multiplayer' aspect of them...IMHO the games of today are all single player PVE games set within a multiplayer environment. The goals they set out are all individual goals and so they never tap the huge potential that lies within mass human interaction..or something like that.

[HaemishM]

Not true.  At least not for LPMuds and DikuMuds.  They were nearly all about combat, not RP.  That doesn't mean there was no RP, but the LPs and Dikus I played were highly achiever oriented: levels, quests and gear.  

MOOs, MUSHes and other types of MUDS were primarily oriented toward RP and socializing.

I'll go ahead and derail the topic in the direction Raph suggested.

MUSHes and MOO's are both significantly different play experiences than MUD's and MMOG's. The entire focus of activities that the former are meant to encourage make them so completely separate from the latter that the two, IMO, should not be put under one umbrella term, other than perhaps Online Entertainment Experience. I almost said "online games" but MUSHes and MOO's really aren't completely game experiences.

I think that is the fatal flaw that both sides of the issue came at this genre from. People try to crush MUSHplay into MUD social structures, but the two really aren't compatible. MUSHplay's basic tenets are not "achiever" oriented, nor competitive-friendly, whereas MUD social structures are almost wholly built upon either the goal of achievement or the rigors of competition. Defining what type of audience you want in your OEE is going to determine the type of success you have with it. And to define your audience, the best way to do that is actual market research, which can and should involve focus groups.

Focus groups are only as worthless as what you do with the information you glean. It's VERY IMPORTANT information, but it requires the right type of thinking. You don't design from what the focus group says, you use what the focus group says to cajole the design. The design of the focus group, both in audience choice AND questions/tasks covered is more important in determining your game's audience than just whether your focus group likes or hates PVP.

[Shockeye]

MUSHes and MOO's are both significantly different play experiences than MUD's and MMOG's. The entire focus of activities that the former are meant to encourage make them so completely separate from the latter that the two, IMO, should not be put under one umbrella term, other than perhaps Online Entertainment Experience. I almost said "online games" but MUSHes and MOO's really aren't completely game experiences.

I'd have to agree with you on this one Haemish. When I used to code for various Diku and Circle MUDs, the goal was to make things more challenging and from that challenge more reward. Socialization wasn't a design goal so much as an afterthough. Whereas MOOs and MUSHes that I had visited didn't have challenge as their goal but socialization through depth, creativity, and a strong sense of community.

[Fargull]

Hmm..

I keep reading this post and looking over Bartle's that it seems everyone is arguing where either the stall or issue is with design.  I only have one observation to make, and I have no idea how insightful or such that it is.  I have found a steady dumbing down of game play from UO onward.  I know that a need to inject the NEWBIE into the game environment is what many companies are targeting, but does the game have to devolve so far from being a challenge or at least interesting (subjective I know) to allow anyone from Walmart to kickstart into the game?  COH (I guess I am a fan boy or something since I keep kicking that name out) is probably the first in a while to provide challenge in the addition of Enhancement Slots and powers through character build.  The Z axis domination and addition of powers that would be deemed crazy powerful for a PC to possess as they allow basically god-mode against the idiot level of NPC intelligence.

It all boils down to feeling like I have to not-think to play these games, and creative thinking leads only to punishment by the Devs....

[El Gallo]

The more I mull it over, the more I think Bartle has a good point (though it's pretty seriously overstated).  I can’t tell you how many times I have heard these two statements on the same message board, and even by the same poster:

1.  When I retire from EQ, I will never again play a game with forced grouping and significant downtime.

2.  The reason I stick with EQ is because of the intense social bonds, whenever I try other MMOGs, they don’t hold my attention because that socialization isn’t there.

This is a classic example of a player not knowing why they like a game.  It’s not the particular examples that matter, it’s the fact that players don’t understand that, in MMOGs, things they don’t like are often necessary components of things they do like.  So they cry for games with all the things they don’t like taken out, and then are shocked to find that they are playing some soulless crapfest.

But they won’t even try a game with forced grouping, with some downtime, without instancing, or without insta-transport.  They just try game after game that can’t hold their attention because there’s no socialization and no sense of being in a world.

[HaemishM]

We Want the World and we want it now.

[sidereal]

MOOs, MUSHes and other types of MUDS were primarily oriented toward RP and socializing.

And simulated large-scale mechanized asskicking.
Sorry, the avatar requires that I carry the banner.

1. When I retire from EQ, I will never again play a game with forced grouping and significant downtime.

2. The reason I stick with EQ is because of the intense social bonds, whenever I try other MMOGs, they don’t hold my attention because that socialization isn’t there.

You're right that there's a certain lack of insight in those two statements, but you also can't argue with them.  I mean, you can't logically prove to someone that they're having fun.  They either are or they aren't.  It is, I think, quite conceivable to have a third option that both eliminates the sense of pointless downtime and forced combat grouping and encourages social bonding.  It happens in ATiTD.  It probably happened in Shadowbane with player towns, despite its other mortal issues.  I'm guessing it happened in UO, though I've never played.  It certainly happened in the text-based world.

One other thought about text-based environments.  The lack of graphics made the turnaround time on new features incredible.  I was involved in the development of various MU* and we'd come up with an interesting idea for a system (like weather, a communications system, a repair system, what have you) and we'd have a prototype up in a day and a fully functional system in a week.  That kind of turnaround time encouraged an iterative and interactive development process that let the game environments become incredibly complex and interesting and yet stay friendly to the players.  The modern style of bimonthly uberpatches is, I think, a bad road to be going down and only exacerbates the problem it tries to solve -- player bitching.  If the players get used to the game environment changing a lot, they won't bitch as much.

The only graphical game I've seen come even close to that level of iterative development is ATiTD, and it's the best graphical MMORPG I've ever played.  Take the same system and drop it on top of a fantasy/combat game, and that'd be hard to beat.

[Shannow]

.ca CF the Wraith! CF the Wraith!
.f
.ff
.k


Don't forget the trekmushes which featured a full space combat system from the early 90s and on..I played a Trekmush that featured full blown combat, economic, research & development systems along with political elections (for those empires that had them) and constant GM run events. Only problem was we only averaged 60-80 players on the best of nights.

[sidereal]

.ca CF the Wraith! CF the Wraith!

.j sh


Another thought on Bartle's idea about carrying expectations.  I wouldn't underestimate how much developers carry expectations about what a MMORPG should look like.  Every time I read a discussion of combat that assumes asinine ideas like 'aggro' and 'pulling' are fundamental concepts of combat, I throw up in my mouth.  And I don't think that's all the fault of the players.

[Shannow]

.ch sr

Yah I find it rather sad when MMORPG players are discussing the various tactics to use in a new game and they have no problems using 100 percent of the tactics and terms from the last game they played. The fact that you can take a player from EQ , sit em down in front of a game of say, WoW and tell em 'alright this is the nuker and he does the buff while this guy pulls the aggros etc' makes me despair for the genre.

[Raph]

The fact that you can take a player from EQ , sit em down in front of a game of say, WoW and tell em 'alright this is the nuker and he does the buff while this guy pulls the aggros etc' makes me despair for the genre.

Does it also make you despair when you can sit someone down in front of a shooter and say "alright, this is the sniper and he does the camping while this guy carpetbombs etc"? Just wondering--seems like I see more complaints about this sort of thing in an MMO context than in the context of other game types.

[schild]

Does it also make you despair when you can sit someone down in front of a shooter and say "alright, this is the sniper and he does the camping while this guy carpetbombs etc"? Just wondering--seems like I see more complaints about this sort of thing in an MMO context than in the context of other game types.

Yes, you can say that about a shooter, but in a shooter you can MISS. In an mmorpg, hit or miss has nothing to do with the user. The first video game I would say 90% of the MMORPG gamer world played was either Pac-Man, Tetris, SMB, or Sonic. Guess what? They all took more skill. But that's an argument I don't want to get into until I read your book.

[sidereal]

Does it also make you despair when you can sit someone down in front of a shooter and say "alright, this is the sniper and he does the camping while this guy carpetbombs etc"? Just wondering--seems like I see more complaints about this sort of thing in an MMO context than in the context of other game types.

Carpetbombs?  You just made that up.
I think we can all agree that in a shooting game where people team up to kill each other with guns, including sniper rifles, the idea of sniping will be pretty intrinsic.

Notice that no one is complaining about the existence of swords, and the swinging thereof.

I fail to see how the ideas of 'pulling', 'aggro', 'buffing', 'debuffing', 'pets', and to some extent 'tanking' are in any way intrinsic to the nature of simulated combat in a fantasy world.  They're perfectly understandable abstractions, but arbitrary ones, not essential ones.  And so why do the same basically arbitrary abstractions get carried from game to game?

They're also bad abstractions.  The first is an exploit tactic built on the fact that enemies are entirely ignorant of anything that happens around them, other than the appearance of a player.  The second is an AI failure turned into a feature.  The whole buff amalgam is a result of the fact that combat is currently reduced to a tiny handful of (or in many cases, a single) integers, and the need for class variety means increasingly repetitive and arcane methods of manipulating those integers have to be created.  Integers which, mind you, are almost exactly the same from game to game.  Health and Energy.  Maybe Endurance, if you're feeling wild.  Etc.

So while you may find it tedious, I find my complaints extremely well founded.

[Margalis]

Does it also make you despair when you can sit someone down in front of a shooter and say "alright, this is the sniper and he does the camping while this guy carpetbombs etc"? Just wondering--seems like I see more complaints about this sort of thing in an MMO context than in the context of other game types.

I would point out that in real life there are people whose job really is to snipe people.

I don't think in real life, or even in imaginary life, that it would be someone's job to just get hit over and over again.

Sniper is not really an abstraction, it's a real thing. "Tank" is not a real thing. The whole idea of a tank is stupid. If the tank is so tough, wouldn't I just go attack the weak guys instead? Oh no, I can't because I'm too dumb and your taunts are just *that* maddening!

The idea of a guy that gets in the way and protects the weak guys is a good one. The idea of a guy that doesn't get in the way but protects weak guys by "taunting" the bad guys is ridiculous.

I would also point out that in a lot of games you can switch roles frequently. I may be a sniper, but 5 minutes later I may pick up a shotgun. In a MMORPG, you are what you are forever.

[rscott]

Pulling?  normally i'd agree.  But have you never 'pulled' a human in DAOC.  I was pulled once myself.  As soon as i realize it happens independent of the AI, then yes, pulling is fine.  Try to imagine a game where pulling isn't possible.  When you attack someone stronger than you, then run away, they DON'T follow.  Doesn't make much sense does it.  Maybe you'd rather they just sit there and take it.  Or perhaps, they run to get help (which isn't always an option).  If i get attacked by a little brat, the last thing on my mind is running for help.  They're going to get beat even if i have to chase them.

Pets?  I seem to remember various baddies having pets they can control.  Its in genre at least, if not prevalent through out.

Buffing and debuffing is a little more nebulous.  Taking vitamin pills?  Energy pills?  Good luck charm that is cast on you?  Personally i could take it or leave it.

Aggro?  Thats basic AI.  It has to know who hit it and identify threats.   He who hurts me the most is my biggest danger.  Attacking from least dangerous to most dangerous is a sure way to die, assuming DPS is relatively constant..  Or is the mob  supposed to attack randomly.  Perhaps mobs could be a bit more intelligent in trying to take down the healer first, or a mage.  But even then i don't think its clear that that is necessarily the smartest option.

Short of buffing/debuffing.  Pets would be more genre specific. I don't think those are abstractions, bad or  otherwise.  But a game where mobs don't chase you down, or run away when first attacked would be lame.  A mob not identifying threats would be lame as well.

[HaemishM]

Pulling?  normally i'd agree.  But have you never 'pulled' a human in DAOC.  I was pulled once myself.  As soon as i realize it happens independent of the AI, then yes, pulling is fine.  Try to imagine a game where pulling isn't possible.  When you attack someone stronger than you, then run away, they DON'T follow.  Doesn't make much sense does it.  Maybe you'd rather they just sit there and take it.  Or perhaps, they run to get help (which isn't always an option).  If i get attacked by a little brat, the last thing on my mind is running for help.  They're going to get beat even if i have to chase them.

How about the mobs NOT attacking anything that it can clearly "see" i.e. has line of sight to. Basically, my thought is that if I can see a mob, it should be able to see me and if hostile, it should attack. But that takes too much processing power for MMOG client-server apps. So we have aggro radius, where things just know you are there, and his buddies ten feet over, in plain sight, but out of aggro radius, don't know I just gut shot his buddy because they aren't "bring a friend." Most of the combat mechanics and strategies of MMOG's are immensely retarded, and yet they are continually being copied.

[Raph]

Whoa, everyone, it was a serious question! I wasn't being defensive or anything, I was just asking.

The first video game I would say 90% of the MMORPG gamer world played was either Pac-Man, Tetris, SMB, or Sonic. Guess what? They all took more skill. But that's an argument I don't want to get into until I read your book.

One of the few italicized sentences in the book is "Not requiring skill from a player is a cardinal sin in game design."

[rscott]

One of the few italicized sentences in the book is "Not requiring skill from a player is a cardinal sin in game design."

None of my pnp rpg sessions required skill.   Yet they were a blast.

[rscott]

How about the mobs NOT attacking anything that it can clearly "see" i.e. has line of sight to. Basically, my thought is that if I can see a mob, it should be able to see me and if hostile, it should attack. .

That i can agree with to an extent, depending on the mob.  It certainly gives a funny artificial feel when they just sit there.  I would give exceptions to non-hostile mobs, non-intelligent mobs...

OTOH, attacking everything it can see?  What if it sees many things in different directions?  What if it will take 10 minutes to get to the thing it can see?  What if what it sees is more powerful than it?  What if it doesn't have enough friends to win?  What if it can't outrun the player (making all chasing pointless)?  What if the player is far enough away that  the mob could realistically think it isn't worth it.  What if the game models stamina more realistically and by the time the mob gets to you, its tired, and easy to kill? Each of those things would make the mob look real stupid indeed.  There are many many reasons  to not attack everything you can see.  The more complex the game, the more reasons you could find.  

I know you aren't proposing this, but I once tried to imagine a world where mobs had similar LOS to players, and had excellent ability to determine if it would win a fight.  I realized in the long run that game would suck.  

BAF code is more understandable.  With the caveats above.