RPG v MMORPG, and the paradox of leveling process/endgame

[heck]

Did the advent of MMORPGs attract more RPG players or more FPS/Twitch players?  And what do these two types of players look for in a MMO?

Before MMOGs, RPGs could only be about the process since the endgame was literally the end of the game.  FPS/Twitch games were practically endgames from day one, you just had to figure out better and faster ways to kill shit. 

I ask this because there seems to be alot of people on the development side asking the players to enjoy the process of leveling, rather than min/maxing from day one.  And then on the player side, there are people who keep crying out for more content and endgame. 

RPG players tend to enjoy the moment, whether it's low level questing or endgame pvp...they want to see some cool shit in an immersive environment, and leveling isn't always a chore.  FPS/Twitch players focus on the competitive side of lewt and pvp...the content of the game itself is disposable and mostly functions as a hurdle to clear in order to reach the endgame, and leveling is definitely a chore.  Both of these playstyles are totally valid, but isn't it strange that MMOs attract them, and doesn't that create a bit of a paradox?

Or maybe these two camps will always be in the same MMOs, like Killbotx and Badthing 

This is simple stuff and I see it in various F13 discussions already, but I wanted to float this post out there anyway. 

 

[Venkman]

I basically disagree with some of the ways genres are defined. I find there's a big difference between a genre defined by a style of play and one defined by a motive to play.

Or, FPS vs RPG.

• To me, FPS is nothing more than a description of interface. It's first/third person requiring manual dexterity, eye/hand coordination, and good reaction times. That's it.
• RPGs are not so much about control system though. They're about narrative and objectives and deepening immersion.

That's why RPG games can take on FPS control systems. They're not blending two genres to me. They're just doing things in reverse of what's been happening to FPS games over the years anyway. They've been adding more goals, depth, required thinking and so on.

Or, RPGs give objectives and purpose while FPS games provide a better more intuitive interface.

MMORPGs meanwhile have all come from RPGs for the most part. They have attempted to speed up the dice rolling to near-twitch levels, but they're still just as much about numbers as ever, and therefore not all that different except in themes. I think it's people who loved RPGs that make up the bulk of MMORPG players. Other players can enjoy MMORPGs though f course.

When Huxley comes out, we'll get to an FPS game with RPG elements. I hope it works, but I have no idea if it will.

[Kail]

RPG players tend to enjoy the moment, whether it's low level questing or endgame pvp...they want to see some cool shit in an immersive environment, and leveling isn't always a chore.  FPS/Twitch players focus on the competitive side of lewt and pvp...the content of the game itself is disposable and mostly functions as a hurdle to clear in order to reach the endgame, and leveling is definitely a chore.  Both of these playstyles are totally valid, but isn't it strange that MMOs attract them, and doesn't that create a bit of a paradox?

I think you're overgeneralizing just a bit here.  RPG players tend to enjoy the moment?  Why do you say that?  I assume you're talking about single player RPGs, yeah?  Because I'm hard pressed to think of a single game where I actually enjoyed all that wandering around fighting random battles against cabbages and bugs and crap as I tried to advance the story.  And saying that FPS players are all competitive testosterone junkies neglects the fact that most FPS games have a solid non-competitive single player focus.

I think a better distinction would be between single player games and multiplayer games.  If you put a game in a multiplayer setting, people will try to be competitive in it.  If you put it in a single player setting, there's a lot less pressure, so you can stop and smell the roses without having to worry about falling behind the curve or getting ganked or anything.  I mean, look at games like Phantasy Star Online, or Diablo, where you can play either online or offline.  Online games are almost always (for me, anyway) these frantic dashes for the boss and his m4d l3wtz, while in offline games, I generally spend a lot more time wandering around exploring.  They're the same game, the only change is that in multiplayer mode, there are other people there.

[heck]

I basically disagree with some of the ways genres are defined. I find there's a big difference between a genre defined by a style of play and one defined by a motive to play.

Or, FPS vs RPG.

• To me, FPS is nothing more than a description of interface. It's first/third person requiring manual dexterity, eye/hand coordination, and good reaction times. That's it.
• RPGs are not so much about control system though. They're about narrative and objectives and deepening immersion.

That's why RPG games can take on FPS control systems. They're not blending two genres to me. They're just doing things in reverse of what's been happening to FPS games over the years anyway. They've been adding more goals, depth, required thinking and so on.

Or, RPGs give objectives and purpose while FPS games provide a better more intuitive interface.

MMORPGs meanwhile have all come from RPGs for the most part. They have attempted to speed up the dice rolling to near-twitch levels, but they're still just as much about numbers as ever, and therefore not all that different except in themes. I think it's people who loved RPGs that make up the bulk of MMORPG players. Other players can enjoy MMORPGs though f course.

When Huxley comes out, we'll get to an FPS game with RPG elements. I hope it works, but I have no idea if it will.

Yea the definitions and the motives are certainly variable.  The point is that there are two basic types of players in MMOGs...KillbotX and Badthing being good examples.  I can't imagine KillbotX taking his time getting and smelling the roses in FF7, nor can I imagine Badthing being very good at the arcade version of Defender.  But both of these stereotypical player types are in the same MMO games, demanding two very different types of game content from developers.  And here we also are in F13 having daily debates on the virtues of crafting/entertaining vs. moving a game in a more twitchy direction. 

I think you're overgeneralizing just a bit here.  RPG players tend to enjoy the moment?  Why do you say that?  I assume you're talking about single player RPGs, yeah?  Because I'm hard pressed to think of a single game where I actually enjoyed all that wandering around fighting random battles against cabbages and bugs and crap as I tried to advance the story.  And saying that FPS players are all competitive testosterone junkies neglects the fact that most FPS games have a solid non-competitive single player focus.

I think a better distinction would be between single player games and multiplayer games.  If you put a game in a multiplayer setting, people will try to be competitive in it.  If you put it in a single player setting, there's a lot less pressure, so you can stop and smell the roses without having to worry about falling behind the curve or getting ganked or anything.  I mean, look at games like Phantasy Star Online, or Diablo, where you can play either online or offline.  Online games are almost always (for me, anyway) these frantic dashes for the boss and his m4d l3wtz, while in offline games, I generally spend a lot more time wandering around exploring.  They're the same game, the only change is that in multiplayer mode, there are other people there.

I needed to do some generalizing in order to launch the thread.  There are always exceptions and I may be off the mark.  But like I said above, the stereotypes aren't being pulled outta my ass.  The KillbotX/Badthing post and the F13 debates about which directions MMOGs need to go are where I drew my stereotypes from. 

So now I'm wondering, will there be a split (sim berus and sandboxes here, twitch there), or will developers try to stick to the all-encompassing style of game making.

Good point on single-player games v. multiplayer games.  Some people use the multiplayer experience to show off or seriously compete, and others use it to meet people and hang out in a casual style.  Again, I wonder if these two types of player bases will remain in the same games simultaneously.

[MemoryofStarlight]

The question goes to the psychology of the person playing the game.  People with different backgrounds and characteristics will play the same game differently.  And yes games with reasonably varying modes of play can and do attract people with varying psychological characteristics.  What one person considers fun isn't always what others consider fun.  Fun can be a very subjective term when one tries to apply it to an activity such as interacting with a computer game.  Especially an online game where the people interacting with the game can't actually directly see or hear the other people playing the game. 

You make a very interesting and important point.  One which most people on this forum don't seem to care to think about.  Putting people with motivations and needs that differ into the same game is perhaps more trouble than it is worth.  At least for the people who have to run the game. 

[Paelos]

I think the move for developers is to create MMORPG games with FPS elements. None have been wildly successful yet, but I think it's very doable. Single player games are ahead of the market in this respect, since a few outstanding games have been released with twitch combat elements but also RPG skill systems. Duex Ex comes to mind as a great blend of this and also allowing various playstyles to beat the game.

However, pvp and the never-ending gameplay of MMOGs demand much more thought and time than a simple single player game. Servers, lots of players, and the idea that everyone cannot be the greatest hero in the world are the antithesis to the idea behind the single player RPG format where you are the one and only champion in a world revolving around you. I think that means having a true RPG like pnp DnD won't fly in the MMOG world, but that doesn't mean that developers haven't tried to shoehorn one in there because it's the world we know. It's simpler than trying to work out the logistic nightmare that is full twitch combat with hundreds of players on the screen at once.

Can they be combined into a MMOG? Yes they can, and they will eventually. I think that's why certain people hate WoW on this board as much as they do. The market is what drives innovation when they won't settle for the same variation of a known product. WoW is just that, a variation of the same idea. There's no real innovative movement away from the fire and forget gameplay that MMOGs are famous for. Rather, WoW just disguises it with a different skin and shiny flashing buttons. However, I don't agree with the idea that if we aren't moving forward in innovation that we are moving backwards. I think stagnation isn't a step backwards, but instead a logical process in wearing down the old norms.

[Akkori]

When I was in the height of my lot-swaps in late '04, I was managing about 400 harvesters (in SWG) over 3 planets. I did it alone, and it was about 90% of my game time. This included loading vendors and seeking out power. More than once on voice chat people would drive by me as I hopped from harv to harv, and would just (verbally) shake their head in amazement, and they woudl always ask me how in the world I could stand to do it over and over and over again. My response was easy: I just asked them how many Pikets they killed today, and if they were going to do it again tomorrow. Invariably they would chuckle and move on. Its just a matter of playstyles. I liked doing it, and it didnt bother me. It was interesting for several months.

I think directed MMO games have a place, I am just sad SWG became that. I think its sad that more games dont try harder to include the different playstyles.

[Raguel]

Where do Civ/sports gamers fit? 

I've grown to dislike mmogs because of the repitition and the fact that most of the content revolves around combat.

[Chenghiz]

MMORPGs need to take cues from the ARG field. Create an experience, allow players to participate in it, and have a beautiful ending with tears, champagne, and an epic battle. Or something. Then another one.

People would subscribe to a story experience within a gameworld of your creation, in an episodic style. Subscribe to a session, or pay by the hour. This way, you have the MMO part (lots of people participating) and the RPG part (a story driven by the players, with a proper beginning, buildup, climax, and conclusion, the way good stories are told.)

[HRose]

Where do Civ/sports gamers fit? 

I've grown to dislike mmogs because of the repitition and the fact that most of the content revolves around combat.

I really don't care about sports. But my "dream mmorpg" incorporates some RTS elements. That's what I would like to see. But still from the one-player perspective (so emergent RTS more than the single player controlling all aspects at once).

[HaemishM]

You make a very interesting and important point.  One which most people on this forum don't seem to care to think about.  Putting people with motivations and needs that differ into the same game is perhaps more trouble than it is worth.  At least for the people who have to run the game. 

O RLY? (I can't fucking believe I just used that).

Rush to World

A MAISE of Twisty Little Passages

Motivation of the desired audience should be the most important aspect of MMOG design. We've gone beyond the ability for one game to be the end-all be-all for most of the MMOG market. There are just too many MMOG's out there to choose from. The games should be concentrating on picking an audience, discovering their motivations for playing and doing everything they can to cater to those motivations, while adding some small bits of other motivation sets in order to provide variety.

You know, niche games.

[Sky]

While niche games can work, I still long for the game I dreamt of when I first heard about mmo. One with good solid fps-style combat, a deep crafting element, a robust trading network, an interesting world to explore, and a gajilloonian minigames. Like sports games? Work on your athletic skills (also good for melee combat) and head to the arena for some football. A company like EA could leverage their properties so if you own Madden (ecch...just making a point) you can enter the stadium and play. Or head out to the links if you own Tiger Woods.

No mmo world is as fun to play in as GTA:SA is. Don't think it can be, I hold firm to my belief that the LCD players have doomed mmo to mediocrity.

[Venkman]

"Niche" is a relative term, particularly for veterans. What we though of as "successful" when we began is nowadays fast becoming niche.

Plus, while there are so many games nowadays that no single one can become the game, this is mostly because there are so many players playing them. Yes, some are easily identified as targeting LCD. But many others, dare I say most others, are not trying to grab everyone. Because they know they can't.

Design for who you want playing your game. Let everyone else go elsewhere. People not in the entertainment industry may infer this as designing for failure, but it's more about designing for reality. Pick a budget, pick your demographic, and scale your business to achieve. Easier said than done for large companies of course, but they're stymied by being large. Small companies have a bit more latitude.

And by "small", I mean any game that can capture from 1k to 100k players. Because that's how things are measured now. That's more than enough players to put 3k-5k concurrent avatars on one server, which is more than enough to have a robust society and economy, as has been seen.

[HaemishM]

Shall I start calling them "Boutique" games then? To show their more specialized nature?

I like Niche Games better. Boutique games sounds like it has a touch of the gay.

[schild]

Shall I start calling them "Boutique" games then? To show their more specialized nature?

I like Niche Games better. Boutique games sounds like it has a touch of the gay.

Boutique games sounds like something that would have to be made by a very independent developer while na niche game could be made by NCSoft or Microsoft.

[tazelbain]

Numbers can't really tell you who is niche.  A WoW clone that sells poorly isn't niche.

[Venkman]

Numbers can tell enough though. Even though "niche" sometimes means one thing to a Publisher (volume of sales/subscriptions) and another to a Gamer (number of people playing/talking-about-it), very often they are not in opposition. But this lack of opposition is based on an honest assessment of what the game actually is, not how it's sold.

For example, ATITD is absolutely a niche title based on how many people play it and the type of game it is. And they knew this. And their business is scaled to it.

Meanwhile, SWG is a near-niche title based on how many people play it (with a higher proportion of multiple account holders apparently) and the true type of game it is (as opposed to how it's sold). But they didn't know this. And their business wasn't scaled to it. AC2 was similar.

All this shows though is that "niche" can be both causal (designed and budgeted that way) and resultant (misunderstood demographic and expectation).

Oh, and I'm with Haemish and continuing with "niche", though not because I think "boutique" is ghey. I just think boutique means an even narrower experience.

[Yegolev]

I need some water with these crackers.  Who could read all of this?  Really?  I had a thought-out post typed up, but it kinda fizzled toward the end.  The executive summary was "stop dicking with semantics, labels are bad, talk about the gameplay, m'kay?".

[Typhon]

I'm in the same boat as Yeg, I started two different posts to respond to the initial article and gave them both up.  I think the concept that there are vast gulfs between FPS, RTS and RPG players is incorrect.  I think the majority is "player".  When companies create fun games that are not niche focused, players play them.

I think the minorities of players who only play RTS/FPS/RPG become the majority that play a particular game when the developer cater to that particular niche (making an RTS game that requires mad RTS skills with little other "fun" elements is creating a niche game).

I think an interesting thing that a game developer could do is to create a game that allows a player to play to his strengths.  Example: a game that allows the FPS/action player to pursue that path while allowing an RTS player to pursue that gameplay with both cooperating and/or competing (there was a game that tried a variation of this, but failed to allow you to specialize in one type of gameplay).