Innovation

[HRose]

I hate the discussion of story in MMORPGs, but I'll address it a tiny bit. To me there are a bunch of problems with MMORPG stories:

1: They are loosely integrated into the game.

2: They are not compelling. They use stock names, stock ideas, etc. The evil orcs from Gul'Thok fought the elves from Everwillow. Yes...we know.

3: The story doesn't match the atmosphere of the game well at all.

Most of the times it seems some third rate "lore" writer just did his thing on the side and they stuck his crappy writing into various tomes and special items and that's the "story."

MMORPGs are also terrible about "show and don't tell" in this regard, which along with things like the uninspired ideas and naming make the stories incomprehensible. So and so is allied with what's his face fighting the evil troll betrayers or some shit - just point me in the right direction to kill rats already motherfuckers!

One thing almost all good stories have is a compelling set of characters, and most MMORPG plots don't have compelling characters or even really characters at all. At best they are names in a chat bubble. Without any memorable characters the stories fall apart.

A story is more than words in a chat bubble or text in some tome you find.

I wrote not long ago a two part article about stories and questing in mmorpgs that touches (and agrees) with all those points. For those interested: part1 and part2.

It starts from a superficial theory and an analysis of questing in WoW and DAoC to then finish with my own practical conclusion about how I'd design a different quest system.

The basic point is the distinction between "filler" (optional) text and a story that is actually the focus of the game. Instead of just a passive backdrop.

That's the core point, imho.

The conclusion is: I want the story to be the SUBJECT of the game. Not the annoying, optional extra that just gets in the way of the gameplay.

[Raph]

The story tangent makes me wonder about the reaction to this other, different pair of blog posts (which HRose already commented on, since unlike most of you, he's a regular on the site):

http://www.raphkoster.com/?p=193 -- "The Pixar Lesson"

http://www.raphkoster.com/?p=216 -- a sample quest, "Beowulf"

[squirrel]

The story tangent makes me wonder about the reaction to this other, different pair of blog posts (which HRose already commented on, since unlike most of you, he's a regular on the site):

http://www.raphkoster.com/?p=193 -- "The Pixar Lesson"

http://www.raphkoster.com/?p=216 -- a sample quest, "Beowulf"

Now Raph - i'm a regular. Reader that is :P. I find i learn more by reading and by the time i formulate my thoughts someone else - usually from here or 'the other site' has said what i think. But i lurk, muahaaaaa.

See? I posted and added nothing of value.

/lurk

[Cyrrex]

I'm a relative MMO virgin (and an F13 virgin as well I suppose), but I guess I am a prototypical gamer.  In examining my own reasons for wanting to play an MMORPG, I find that the actual story part itself is not one of the compelling issues...a good story would be welcome, but in the few MMOs I have tried the story itself seemed unnecessary.   This isn't to say, however, that a great story couldn't become central to the success of a future game, but I think it has to be implemented differently than it currently tends to be.

If you look at a few examples of vanilla RPGs (of the non MMO type) that achieved huge success over the years - both in my own mind as well as my perception of their commercial successes - it seems that the story itself is a huge factor.  I am thinking of games like KOTOR, Zelda, the Final Fantasy series...the uber popular single player RPGs.

KOTOR (either 1 or 2) had, even at release, rather outdated graphics.  The combat system was okay, but definitely a watered-down, more accessible version of Bioware's D20 system, and nothing particularly astonishing.  It is a Star Wars title, which is a double-edged sword.  What really set it apart was the story.  The dialogue was not only well-written, thought provoking and often humorous, but it had a major bearing on the development of both the story and the central character.  Everything you said or did mattered in the grander scheme.  In short, the game forced you to attach yourself emotionally to it.

The Final Fantasy series is/was similar in many ways, minus the "decision trees" that KOTOR forced on you.  It is true that these games also had innovative combat systems, and recent editions were pushing technical limits as well (at least in CGI)...but it was the story telling that sucked people in.  As silly as they often were, they somehow managed to draw you in anyway.

Another thing these kinds of  games have in common is that you, the player, are the center of the universe.  The game all but forces you to follow the story, because it is YOUR story.  You are affecting the progression of the story, or it is affecting you.  In short, you have a vested interest in it.

This, in my opinion, is where the MMOs get it "wrong".  As long as you are able to ignore the story itself, skip to the bottom of the quest journal for directions, get your shiny reward after performing straight-forward actions with complete disregard for the impact of the story or its impact on you - then 90% of the population are not going to care.  There are undoubtedly interesting, well-written, thought provoking or humorous stories/quests in any and every MMORPG - but if I am not somehow forced to care about them, then I simply am not going to.  I will just go kill 10 Undead Midget Clowns for shiny thing.

The paradox here, in my opinion, is this:  How do you engage me fully into the story of the game in an MMO environment so that it feels like I matter to the story, and that the story matters to me?  How can you make me feel like the center of the universe, without it actually being so?

If you cannot achieve that, then the story will always be secondary at best.   People have clamoured for a KOTOR online game, but once they realize that all of the above will go kaputski, then it will lose all of its appeal.

[Venkman]

The command-line lets you attempt anything under the sun; the GUI lets you cliick a lot of places.

Actually, both are equally limited by the visions of their creators. No game exists with unlimited options. Command-line is simply less limited by screen real estate. It's also a lot harder to intuit for two reasons:

• Most people are not programmers, so aren't thinking like one.
• Most people are not designers, so don't easily intuit the designer's intent in a situation. GUI is linked to this in my mind. You can give players puzzles, but you have to give them the tools to solve it through the system. This is one reason why traditional adventure games aren't selling like hotcakes.

So I agree GUI is complex. The graphics part alone may not be, but the screen real estate and knowing what a player needs to know at any given time is not always easy. Compare CoH's interface with SWGs. The games are fundamentally different to their core, requiring completely different things (though I'd argue SWG's is overdone for what really needs to happen at a particular time).

And where you have seen exactly these stories. Because I'm more than ready to demolish this argument.

That's why I used the word "causal". They don't exist outside of single-player games because so far the perception is that making creative stories is irrelevant to the type of people playing these games. They want objectives and short to long term rewards. And they want those delivered in the form of character advancement and items. They don't care if they have to hack up wolves or kittens or dragons. Everything goes under the sword or spell in support of efficient gains.

False.

I can read a book and "care" even if I have no control over what the characters of the book do.

Irrelevant reference. In MMORPGs, you are in compete control. Your relationship with your avatar is on a different order than being a third person omniscient observer of a story delivered in a one-way entertainment experience (TV, movies, books, etc). You don't control the book but you can control the game. In the "successful" MMORPGs though, your choices are very limited (either advance, or not). In virtual lifestyles, you do literally get to write your own story. In neither does the game give you a long series of narrative to play within though. For the most part, the world will not react to you any differently based on the choices you make. This has been lost since EQ1, and since the much earlier Ultima IV.

I suspect it'll come back again when developers realize the min/maxers are not the only people interested in playing in semi-persistent online worlds. But since that group's the loudest, and the most established (being the earliest adopters), and some of them have gone on to development to push their preferences and worldview, the limbo we're in is the result.

The other avenue is to push player stories. This is tougher because it requires accountability similarly lost, and personal motivation, which doesn't seem to be as popular as game-direction. Yet it happens all the time, just not in the games that get millions of subscribers.

[Fargull]

This, in my opinion, is where the MMOs get it "wrong".  As long as you are able to ignore the story itself, skip to the bottom of the quest journal for directions, get your shiny reward after performing straight-forward actions with complete disregard for the impact of the story or its impact on you - then 90% of the population are not going to care.  There are undoubtedly interesting, well-written, thought provoking or humorous stories/quests in any and every MMORPG - but if I am not somehow forced to care about them, then I simply am not going to.  I will just go kill 10 Undead Midget Clowns for shiny thing.

The paradox here, in my opinion, is this:  How do you engage me fully into the story of the game in an MMO environment so that it feels like I matter to the story, and that the story matters to me?  How can you make me feel like the center of the universe, without it actually being so?

I think the quest / storyline issue with MMOGs is more due to the inherent singleplayer focus that has kept its latched claws on the industry since UO first hit the market.  Hell, the best lore in game that I have run into as a player was the damn Necromancy hints in UO.

One huge issue with any story (and I don't know why a modular box design for quests has not been done) is that I see zero reason to ever read the quest more than once since it will never change for the life of the game.  That damn idiot in Duotar will still demand the death of 10 boars no matter how many months the world might advance.  Static content is the death of good lore.  Hell, I would be peachy if I started a new alt and every quest I thought I knew was different the second time around.  Of course, several sites online would be going bug eyed insane, but hey, that is interesting too...

[StGabe]

Sgt. Gabe

Evolution is fundamentally about hill-climbing. Adapting to conditions over time to improve one’s lot.

No, no, no.  I have a quote I drag out when people start talking about evolution, "Evolution is not a step-ladder".  It is not hill climbing.

Evolution is ultimately about surviving, or to be more specific, exisiting.  I'll let you in on a little secret, the meaning of life.  It's not to be happy, or better, or to have a big house, or whatever.  The secret "meaning of life" is, simply, to exist.

Reproduction, adaptation, evolution... they are all just means to an end.  Raph is right; people tend to connect evolution with progress.  It's mainly because we have the big brains to allow us to ponder our existance and to think of what makes our lives good or bad, happy or sad, etc.  But really, evolution is just a means to an end, and that end is the continuing existance for a set of molecules.

Evolution *is* progress in a certain direction.  As you say, it is a means to an end.  Whether it is progress overall, i.e. whether it leads to something that is truly better in the big-picture, is another thing altogether and you are misreading my post if you think that's what I'm saying (but hey, at least you promoted me from Saint to Sergeant :)).  Also you should understand that when I am talking about hil climbing I am talking about the fundamental mechanics of evolution, the algorithm.  Evolution is stochastic, parallel hill climbing.  That means, it is a process of trying lots of random solutions to a problem at once, and advancing to those solutions which are slightly better for a given environment.

I think you are trying to make a point that is really pretty much what I am saying.  Evolution isn't guaranteed to get you someplace good, and you may get stuck in a local maxima.  I.e. you may climb to the top of the short hill and not have anywhere to go from there.  And how you get off that hill, typically, is that the environment around you changes, making certain solutions no longer optimal and causing the agents of evolution to try other solutions and look for new hills.  The thesis of my comments really is that in trying to climb their respective hills, consumers, developers and publishers all head towards niches and local maxima and thus stifle innovation.   Consumers play what they know because that is the easiest way to climb a hill from where they are.  Publishers re-use concepts that worked in the pask and avoid risk like the plague because it may plummet them into a valley.  Developers have to feed their families and may put aside dreams and good ideas to make a living.  It will require a large movement to get off the current hill, a lucky innovation, or a change in the environment to make significant change from current genre lines.  Or it may be that evolution under different environments (i.e. Korea) will find new heights that we can use here.  Etc.

[StGabe]

MMORPGs are also terrible about "show and don't tell" in this regard, which along with things like the uninspired ideas and naming make the stories incomprehensible. So and so is allied with what's his face fighting the evil troll betrayers or some shit - just point me in the right direction to kill rats already motherfuckers!

To get involved with the story discussion: yes I think it's about showing instead of telling.  I think that's something MMO developers are trying to figure out.  But I don't think it has to do with the written prose in the game.  I think the written prose is a crutch and a distraction.  An attempt to bring in story from somewhere else and paste it over your game.  Any quest text, no matter how well-written is "telling".  You're a hero because the game said in a text description that you were.

And as long as massively-multiplayer games rely on text and graphics to convey story I think they will be lacking.  They will be telling instead of showing.  A single-player game like the very excellent Indigo Prophecy can get away with this stuff because it is implementing a very carefully arranged story and directing a single player through it with a finite horizion (usually less than 100 hours) of story.  That works for singleplayer stuff very well and is completely infeasible for massively multiplayer stuff.  In a massively multiplayer context where gameplay is intended to last months all narrative must come through gameplay (after which you can push some text labels on it).  Players see through the text, no matter how well written and just look for the gameplay.  It's inevitable.  "I don't care what the quest is.  What do I have to do and what do I get when I do it?"  That's what has actual meaning and in contrast the text is easily seen to be completely meaningless. The place to create a story is not with an NPC description of why you are doing what you are doing.  It is in the doing.  Which boils down to game mechanics.  (read this for more on how meaning is fundamentally tied to gameplay in an MMOG).

An example I used in a post on Raph's site was:

A good example is Fish Banks, an educational game that shows the story of the tragedy of the commons. In the game you and several other teams own fishing companies and try to make money fishing. The game models a realistic fish ecology and of course, eventually, fish populations start to retreat. Despite the fact that players can completely control how much they fish, the outcome is almost always that fish populations are decimated. No one comes into the game picking the “greedy corporation” class. No one earns an “ecologist” badge. And yet a very powerful story is shown. Not through verbiage but entirely through game mechanics. That you are fishing and that it is fish populations which are dying out is merely a detail, and the lesson of the game applies equally to many other contexts.

What you do, and the results of failure or success are all defined strictly through gameplay and the text labels attached are purely secondary.  And yet a very effective story is told.  MMO's need to find better ways to do this.  They don't do it well right now because of two things IMO.  One is that it is just very hard to do.  Coming up with an idea for a one-off game like Fish Banks is one thing.  Filling a world with such interactive games and making them have an infinite or near-infinite horizon of playability is very difficult.  Secondly I think we are stuck in the mindset of table-top gaming and small-world MUD's.  I think we need to forget aboutthese as a model for creating stories because these worlds work only because they are carefully hand-crafted by administrators and DM's for small audiences.  Here's where we will hear the cry for "player-created content".  I just think that is a hill that has been climbed already with games like NWN and there are limitations there that still prevent this from taking off.  Developers can't trust players to create first-class content and so player content always has to be delegated to a secondary role.  And generally not enough players care about creating content to get it off the ground anyway.  I think we need to throw away the idea of player-created content and move on to player-created gameplay.  I.e. creating systems like Fish Banks where the actions of players, through the gameplay, create the gameplay (and through gameplay, a story).  ATitD is perhaps the best attempt at that so far and I think that ideas like ATitD could go a lot further than they have -- we haven't reached the peak of that hill yet.  And some areas of player-created content as it is defined now are also examples of player-created gameplay.  Creating cities, and other world-creation game mechanics in SWG are a good example.

[Krakrok]

I think a lot of you are missing what Raph was saying in his article. What I got out of it was "Don't get pigeonholed into the current MMOG mechanics. There are other ways to do 3d worlds.". A lot of the posts in this thread still seem to be stuck on the current MMOG mechanic.

---

So, a 3D version of This.

Okay, imvu.com wins. It's MySpace+Renderosity+SL+IGE.

MySpace clone, check.
3D Avatar IM chat, check.
3D Content marketplace, check.
3D Player content creation, check.
3D Content creation tools, check.
Paying for virtual crap, check.

They pretty much have a lot of what I was talking about. The only thing they don't seem to have done is tie it into a massive "game" element. It's just 3D 1v1 chat or maybe max 16 person 3D chat in a "movie set" location. They are coming at it from a website with tacked on 3D elements though verses a MMOG with tacked on web elements.

[Akkori]

This is something I feel qualified to talk about. You guys leave me behind with all the mumbo-jumbo stuff about MMO analysts. But I do read, alot. I devour books and magazines. I read at least a full novel every week when I am in form, and even when I dont read much, only a couple times a week, I still finish a book every 2 weeks. When I am really bored, I can down a 500+ page book in 3 days.

I love good stories.

But I admit freely that I dont bother to read hardly anything in the games I have played (SWG and ATitD). After the first mission blurb, I never read them again. After my first story Arc, I never bothered with them again. The only Quests I bothered reading was the Warren (in SWG).

Part of the problem is that so many damn people are FRANTIC to get XP, and you dont XP from reading. So if you are with a group, its very likely most of them just want you to kill and move on. And since virtually none of the solo Quests are (were) detailed enough to be potentially interesting, I wouldnt get them then either.

If the obsession with getting XP was not as much of an issue, then maybe people might take some time to read or immerse themselves in the story. But you would also naturally need to have good stuff to read. Anyone here ever read the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books? Those were great! Really made you feel like a part of the story. It blows my mind that these kind of missions are not a part of any MMO I have heard of.
 All I see is "do A, then B, then C" or " Go to A, kill that, take loot to B, turn it over, protect B from C" or variations of that. Why cant we make use of the wonderful flexibility of multiple plot lines and outcomes?

If a game was released that had original and stimulating stories, and where people didnt get the heebie-jeebies if they weren't maximizing their XP intake, then maybe we would see some of the non-murderers who enjoy games joining up. You know, the Explorers and Socializers?

[Raph]

The only Quests I bothered reading was the Warren (in SWG).

Why did you read that one? I plotted it, though I did not write the actual dialogue, just the outline of the conversation.

It's actually just about the only content of mine in SWG, I think (as opposed to systems).

[Cyrrex]

The only Quests I bothered reading was the Warren (in SWG).

Why did you read that one? I plotted it, though I did not write the actual dialogue, just the outline of the conversation.

It's actually just about the only content of mine in SWG, I think (as opposed to systems).

Even though that question wasn't directed to me, I will answer - because I read it too.  The reason?  I felt that I had to.   It was confusing enough (in a good sense) that you were practically compelled to read to ensure that you caught all the details.  This is a good thing, because it manages to integrate the story itself with the ultimate goal.

The stories that make you pay attention and force you to care are the best ones...as long as it is also written well.  KOTOR comes to mind again here.

[Venkman]

It was confusing enough (in a good sense) that you were practically compelled to read to ensure that you caught all the details. This is a good thing, because it manages to integrate the story itself with the ultimate goal.

That has been my point as well. When the story matters to the game, it gets read.

Hrose?

[HRose]

That has been my point as well. When the story matters to the game, it gets read.

Hrose?

What? I agree. As I agree with what Akkori wrote above.

All I wrote recently and on that other thread about the levels, all pivots around the same points. I also want back the stories and the immersion in the mmorpgs. I want NPCs characters that live in the world instead of just being serviceable cheese dispensers. I want a game based on skills and that is self-consistent instead of needing excuses to keep the players hooked up even if the game has nothing to offer.

I want back all what MATTERS and that this genre made us forgot. We basically inherited and polished only the worst parts. We attentively filtered the crap, it seems.

Excuses of a game, without having the game.

[schild]

I disagree, when the story matters it doesn't get read. 99% of the players out there don't want to waste time reading. [Good] Voice acting is the way to go. If need be, force people to listen to it in order to learn what they have to do (a la Deus Ex or the Harclave's Quest in EQ2). Basically, game writing is often too horrible to even waste time on things like reading.

[HRose]

I disagree, when the story matters it doesn't get read. 99% of the players out there don't want to waste time reading. [Good] Voice acting is the way to go.

I agree. But good voice acting would be interesting ONLY in the case what is being said starts to become relevant. The voice acting for the quests we have right now is again pure "filler".

Good voice acting could add a whole lot if the world had characters and immersive stories. But again this would work only in a totally different model. The voice acting is another tool to bring the focus on the story and the mechanics of the story (so the world, instead of the player) but it's the structure (the shift of focus in the gameplay) to define the role of the voice acting.

[schild]

I disagree, when the story matters it doesn't get read. 99% of the players out there don't want to waste time reading. [Good] Voice acting is the way to go.

I agree. But good voice acting would be interesting ONLY in the case what is being said starts to become relevant. The voice acting for the quests we have right now is again pure "filler".

That's why I mentioned Harclave. If you haven't played EQ2 or done anything in the Splitpaw Saga, let me just say, it's really goddamn cool.

[Venkman]

I disagree, when the story matters it doesn't get read.

This is a circular argument though around the same question though. When has the story mattered? No matter how good a particular passage is, if the whole purpose of it is to fill space before giving you the exact choiceless direction (Kill X for Y or don't Kill X for Y), then it's wasting time to read it for most.

When I think of integrated stories, I mean having players live in a world going on around them, with various factions vying for relevance, where choosing one side over another has direct short and long term impact on where you go and what you do, and choices along the way similar have impact. Sort of old skool type stuff here. Basically, story can lead to accountability, which seems to be a form of profanity nowadays like full-PvP was three years ago.

To your point, EQ2 has been doing some great stuff with this in my opinion, but mostly on the macro level. For me at least though (which means I could be way wrong, since I only played it in beta), the choices one made were limited to either advancing or not advancing. If you were liked in Qeynos, you either made the conscious choice to rebel through that late-teens quest, or you traveled the path of being slightly liked to openly beloved. It's certainly a nice step forward, but I'd prefer a more fluid experience.

[schild]

The game has changed 1,000% since you last played. If you haven't played since beta (especially you, actually), you need to give it another shot.

[sarius]

The game has changed 1,000% since you last played. If you haven't played since beta (especially you, actually), you need to give it another shot.

Very much agree.  I was very surprised when some friends dragged me kicking and screaming to play EQ2.  It appeals to group play now, while having plenty of individual activities.  The major penalties for playing in a group have all but disappeared.

[schild]

Yups. The major penalty now for playing in a group is playing with a group. Blech.

[StGabe]

I tried to tell ya'all that EQ2 already had better quests than WoW and was implementing solo content at a furious pace months ago. :)

Gabe.

[Stephen Zepp]

Ton of good points out there I was going to reply to separately, but will try to tie them together instead with one sentence: Story doesn't have to be what you read, it's what you experience.

A couple people of have mentioned voice-overs as the replacement for text, and that "showing" isn't telling, and therefore isn't good enough. I'll try to give two examples from old EQ1:

Our loved/hated Sleeper's Tomb: This sucked because it was a one shot experience, and EQ didn't have any additional one shot experiences, so only a very few ever got to expeirence it, but the fact that player's actions changed the world was an experience. When all 4 guardians died, Kerafym (I think, it's been along time) actually went out into different zones and did things (ok, so he just killed everyone, but still)--the world had changed, and people experienced something that they wouldn't have experienced otherwise. Yes, you could go read up on how Kerafym was hatched and why, and what that did to the Dragon Council, and what THAT did to the iksar empire, and why the frogloks were down there camping Sebilis and all that, but it was the game changing experience that in my opinion made it a good (better than otherwise) story.

A second example of a failed story was the iksar/chardok (can't remember the race off the top of my head) war, and how the snake race inter-related when SoL came out. The reason that this one failed however is because there wasn't any experience involved in the process--you either raided Chardok and killed the royals, or you didn't, but nothing ever happened one way or the other. Now, had you been able to sway the balance of power between the two, and, say, if you helped escort a war party of iksar npc from the iksar city to chardok, they would actually stay there and do things until defeated again, that would be an experience for not only those that helped one side or the other, but those that came along afterwards as well.

I think voiceovers would be an even worse alternative than text--because text is (relatively) easy to update and evolve. Voiceovers are a lot more investment, and therefore would have a lot less long term benefit.

I also think that static worlds (and looking back, this is why I detest the concept of instancing so much--it's almost by definition static because what someone does isn't experienced by anyone else at a later time...they just load up the instance again) are the root failure of story in MMO environments--the "story" can simply be read once, but it's not on (ongoing) experience.

[Akkori]

The poster above nailed it right on the head. I read the Warren text because I didnt know what the hell to do! BUT, it was a nice bonus that the story interesting, had a beginning and end, and I was about to be a part of it.

I disagree with the voiceover thing, but only for technical reasons. The cost of getting so many VO recorded would be pretty steep I think. But I have to admit, the Entry quest in SWG is pretty snazzy. The Han VO is good, and I got a little thrill the first time I heard it. Yeah, its stupid, but it's Star Wars, so bite me. And, as someone mentioned, text is easier to implement, edit, change, and can be discarded with little thought to the effort in implementing it.

Lest ye think I am completely opposed to VO, let me reassure you that I *would* like to see more in game, but only as a supplement to a rich texual content addition. There are 10 planets out there, and only maybe 3 are used regularly for adventuring. Thats sad. There is a LOT of history out there for SOE to use, especially if they push the timeline forward far enough (Vong, anyone?). Star Wars has a rich history, despite Lucas' mediocrity.

One of the things I really crave is to "Make A Difference" in the game. I want to see my actions affect the World. This can be in a literal way (blowing up stuff that stays destroyed), or figurative (I am one of 3 people who knows and can teach a certain skill). There are systems in SWG, for instance, that sorta do that. Their factional "point system" keeps track of who kills the most of the opposite faction, and it influences which faction has NPC's in a city. Or the Bestine Painting Vote system (broken now for several months), where you voted for a guy, and the next Art release depended on that. So it CAN be done. Its just not done enough. And with multiple servers, its probably pretty hard to do.

And by the way, I take issue with the supposition that 99% of the players in MMO's dont like to read. The problem is, once again, twofold. The text doesnt matter, and its rarely interesting. The Kashyyyk Quests are pretty well written, but they are still just A,B,C quests, with no real interesting outcome.

I know that having a truly dynamic, story-driven game would be a pretty serious task, but it would be extremely cool. Stories interest more people that those who only want to murder things all day long for XP. Hell, MMO's a BASED on a story, dont ya know!? Why does it have to end there?

And I still believe that Devs are wasting a HUGE source of stories and content... the players. I just cant believe that so many people on these forums think its too much work to develop a tool that allows players to make their own content. But regardless, it seems to me that a Dev team should focus as much on dynamic content as it does combat. The Live Events team in SWG is pretty good, but completely inadequate to service more than one or two servers. There should *always* be Digiteers (where does that term come from? I forget) online, generating targetted missions, and opening new Steps in Existing Quests. Somehow, Hollywood manages to generate a fresh story every week for its TV audience. That, if applied to an MMO, would be spectacular. Add in the ability for Players to affect the course and progress, and you would see something amazing. IMHO.

[Venkman]

The game has changed 1,000% since you last played. If you haven't played since beta (especially you, actually), you need to give it another shot.

Shit, that much? Well then, I'm already into them for two titles, so maybe it's time to check out a Station pass. Time is the only limiting factor, but it's not like SWG is going anywhere (or is it? *evil/suspicious bass hits* )

Question: is the 7-day Trial of the Isle sufficient enough to experience the differences from the last 13 months? Or am I looking at hitting the Qeynos levels before noticing it?

[Azazel]

I think that the poster above who mentioned the choose-you-own-adventure mode (aka Fighting Fantasy, aka Tunnels and Trolls solo adventures) had a really good point. Give players branching quests, where they make choices as they go through quest trees as opposed to only having one-shots and quest chains.

Vary the rewards, the faction, etc depending on what choices the player makes. Sure, a lot of people will still just go check out allakhazams or thottbot or whatever website to min/max the reward that suits them best, but still, requiring choices to be made through a quest tree would make the quests ever-so-slightly more interactive than they are now.

As for voice, make it an option at most. I hate most voice acting in games, particularly hearing American or Australian accents in fantasy games - it's incredibly immersion-breaking. The poster who mentioned that text is easy to change, voice samples are not also had a good point.  They also take up tons of space.

[Tale]

We can take some comfort in knowing that we do not only adapt to the ecological niche; the niche also adapts to us. I’ll say it bluntly: some virtual world will come along that will make all the current ones look like amoebas, and it isn’t going to be because it has more levels, more classes, more races, and more three-letter-acronyms. It’s going to be a disruptive innovation, out of left field, and it’ll make the current market quiver in its boots the way dinosaurs quivered when they saw the first puny mammal.

Do you think a Gibson-esque cyberspace could come from this evolution? More people are spending more time in these games, involving more real-life money, relationships, legal issues, etc. WoW goes 5-10 million, next innovation goes 50 million and impacts economies, then a 500 million+ environment, beyond a game, home to everyone/everything with a computer (corporations, banks, legally recognised property, criminals, elections, etc)?

I started playing MMOGs because of my interest in 3D worlds, rather than coming from MUDs, RPGs or pen-and-paper (though I had a little bit of all three). Prior to the Internet boom, I had read all of William Gibson's books and Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash. I grew up playing in 3D wireframe spaces on the C64, such as Elite and Mercenary. I was a computer journalist when Doom and Windows 95 were released, and envisaged a "3D OS" convergence of both kinds of environments, via the Internet. I used Worlds Inc's Worlds Chat and Alpha World, played Tribes and SubSpace. Then I bought EverQuest because a review said you could live in this 3D world, fight stuff, make stuff or just go fishing (3D OS! Cyberspace!).

Some Gibson/Stephenson elements are now real: wireheads dropping dead in cybercafes, PK IRL, the presence of shady industry like IGE and the farmers, Second Life's transactions, cultural differences expressed in choice of environment, etc. The Internet boom itself followed the pattern of persistent worlds: lots of failures, with the occasional big leap forward. An MMOG is like a minority 3D OS on top of a network mostly used for 2D apps, but further "disruptive innovations" and exponential growth would surely change this.

[Raph]

Do you think a Gibson-esque cyberspace could come from this evolution?

I think that dream is too big not to get chased by people. The Second Life guys, and the There guys, for example, explicitly set out with that as the goal. The Accelerating Change Institute is planning sessions on defining the metaverse protocol -- this year.

[Samwise]

Give players branching quests, where they make choices as they go through quest trees as opposed to only having one-shots and quest chains.

The problem with branching quests is that you end up having to generate exponentially increasing amounts of content (depending how many layers deep the branching goes) in order to produce a linearly increasing amount of play time.  Any given player will play through 5 of the quests in your binary tree structure and in so doing lock himself out of another 26.  And MMOGs already have trouble keeping up with the demand for content.

[Tale]

that dream

On the back of my copy of Neuromancer is a quote calling it "the future as nightmare". But I agree it's going to happen, I just wonder if it will come out of proprietary MMOG innovations (including Second Life, etc) or a standard like a VRML/Metaverse protocol. It will be interesting to see what the millions of people who were noobs in WoW get into next.

Metaverse is the Stephenson word for it, which I forgot. I guess Gibson's word cyberspace is now butchered beyond recognition.

[schild]

If you think like that. We know my opinion. The millions of noobs who were into Starcraft III got into WoW. Next? Starcraft 2.

MMOGs need to hit the consoles before they truly break down walls. Voice communication, standardized platforms, the polish of most console titles - these are needs the genre has and hasn't yet acquired. Sure, FFXI and Phantasy Star Online exist, but they're too limited a field. They need to make a Halo MMOG instead of a next Planetside.  Not that I would know whether a Halo MMOG is in the works, but that's the sort of thing that would blow the current idea of a market out of the water. Too bad harddrives aren't standard on the 360. I expect the PS3 to blaze new ground in this particular area.

While I don't really like some of these ideas, it's just the inevitable outcome of a hard fought war against simplification.. 100 Million+ market installation versus 15 Million or so. Twenty Five Million if you count people that only play Blizzard games. 

Edit: Also, something's been bothering me. Localization. There are at LEAST 10 MMOGs out in Japan and Korea based on existing IP that America has interest in, but they don't localize it. It's not like they have voices to re-record. Maybe it's the lack of people that bought a PS2 harddrive. Or a lack of Square games on PC in America. But I for one think there's a good niche waiting to be filled with localized titles. Can we say Front Mission Online?

[HRose]

The problem with branching quests is that you end up having to generate exponentially increasing amounts of content (depending how many layers deep the branching goes) in order to produce a linearly increasing amount of play time.  Any given player will play through 5 of the quests in your binary tree structure and in so doing lock himself out of another 26.  And MMOGs already have trouble keeping up with the demand for content.

Exactly, I called this narrative++ because it isn't really a different model to develop content. It's just explonential more work. so it's a possbililty that must be used cautiously and appropriately.

Branching quests aren't where the foundamental point is. The fundamental point is about making a game revolve around stories and characters. DISLODGING the quest mechanics from being just level-up ease of use. And make them focus on the story itself, the immersion. Not on the power growth. This is all in the two articles I linked above.

In a mmorpg the "kill10rats" model is about an "excuse" to disguise the treadmill. The strict purpose of this quest is that you gain experience and get loot. These quests are excuses so that the process seems more varied (kill10 this, then move and kill10 of that, instead of just plain grinding in one spot). Once you killed those 10 rats, you are exactly in the same situation of before. The quest is no more availiable and you pass on something else. But the quest itself, has no purpose or actual sense in the world. It was there as a pretence, not as a strong, motivating element. An "extra" in the game, not the subject of the game.

[Tale]

If you think like that. We know my opinion. The millions of noobs who were into Starcraft III got into WoW. Next? Starcraft 2.

They are finding they can't get back into non-massively multiplayer games. At least that's what the ones I've talked to said. WoW blew their minds, even if they no longer play it. But they don't know about any previous MMOGs or MUDs or anything - as far as they are aware, Blizzard has just invented the MMOG and the other things we call MMOGs are some kind of obscure geek thing (perhaps how many EQ1 players saw MUDs). They don't want Starcraft 2 unless it's World of Starcraft.

[schild]

Goddamn my post was filled with problems.

Warcraft III -> WoW -> SCII. That's what I thought in my head at least.

Anyway, sure, Blizzard invented the dungeon crawler and RTS also. Right.

Also, they don't need World of Starcraft. They just need WoW expansions. Diablo Online would work better than WoS anyway. Starcraft would just be Warcraft in space. I wonder where I've heard that.

[Venkman]

They are finding they can't get back into non-massively multiplayer games. At least that's what the ones I've talked to said. WoW blew their minds, even if they no longer play it. But they don't know about any previous MMOGs or MUDs or anything - as far as they are aware, Blizzard has just invented the MMOG and the other things we call MMOGs are some kind of obscure geek thing (perhaps how many EQ1 players saw MUDs). They don't want Starcraft 2 unless it's World of Starcraft.

That's been precisely my dilemma since 5 minutes into UO :)

And thanks for the info on the Accerating Change Institute and the Gibson/Stephenson refs. Forgot about those, so time to do me some re-reading.