MMOs for MMO players?

Originally Posted by Dechs Kaison See, it's gems like these that make me check Claws' post history every once in a while to make sure I haven't missed anything good lately.

I disagree. In fact, let's go by examples:

Not necessarilty. Even ignoring the fail that is Mirror's Edge, I can point you to quite a few first-person games that don't play like classic shooters - like Portal. But I have one even better. Consider how different games like the ooold Doom clones that keep being released to this day as Serious Sam, Painkiller and so forth are to the army of cover-based shooting military style FPS games that Call of Duty made popular.

Yes, they have similar controls, in that you push buttons on the keyboard and things happen on-screen, but that's a very broad definition of similarity. How these games are different is much more profound than how they are similar. I'm talking about regenerating health vs. a health bar, bunny-hopping vs. cover-based shooting, currency-based item purchases vs. picking up dropped weapons, "only two weapons" vs. unlimited arsenal, single-player focus vs. multiplayer-game, deathmatch focus vs. organised team warfare, the list goes on. Left 4 Dead 2 doesn't play like Battlefield 2, and I didn't get Bulletstorm because I liked Sniper Elite. Every shooter is not like every other shooter to nearly the same extent as MMOs are, even if the bane of regenerating health DOES go a long way towards that end.

I spent my youth playing fighting games, and I can tell you for a fact that this couldn't be farther from the truth. Fighting games are only "alike" as far as the basic model goes - i.e. one fighter fighting one other fight. But even that's not true any more, with tag-in fighting games, two-on-one fighting modes and so forth. You could cite the faux 2D playing field, but that's not necessarily true, especially with the massive proliferation of 3D arena fighters such as Virtua Fighter. Not every game has punch and kick buttons, such as Samurai Shodown, which has slash buttons.

In fact, when you get down to it, a fighting game is made by its combat system, and combat systems in fighting games are more varied than almost any other genre. Capcom's VS series and their six-button system seem to be some of the most popular, but SNK's four-button legacy lives on even if the company itself doesn't. Mortal Kombat's own brand of fighting continues to evolve while Tekken and Tobol and the like are still being made, while Street Fighter style games remain unlike all of the above. And even if you memories all of the above, I can still sit you down to something like Rise 2: Resurrection and you won't have any idea what to do, because it's not like any of those other games.

That's far, far, FAR too broad a definition to be meaningful. It's like saying that all games are alike because you push buttons, things happen on the screen and you eventually achieve an objective. Sure, it might leave out "games" like Second Life, but practically any game that's built as a game will fit that description. "You control your character to complete certain objectives" describes over half the games ever made.

I disagree, as that has never been my experience. Whenever I ask people what games they like, they give me a list of the games they've played and enjoyed and finish with "like those." Sure, I've met a lot of people who DISLIKED specific genres over the broader characteristics that describe them, but I've never met people who LIKED specific genres because those characteristics are too broad to like something by.

I can, for instance, say without a doubt that I don't like consoles in general as I lack the TV set to run them and don't enjoy playing games on a TV to begin with, but I can't say that I like "computer games" merely because I have a powerful computer and a comfortable setup. It's more a question of "will try" vs. "won't try" as opposed to "will like" vs. "won't like." When people bring up game genres, it's usually in respect to what games they're willing to give a chance to, not what games they're going to like.

However, I can tell you without a doubt that, barring a few exceptions, people aren't going to stand for paying money to buy the same game over and over again. That's why sequels to games are seen with such bile when they get into 4 or 5 or above, unless they offer something new. Sure, football and rugby games might somehow subsist on selling the same game to people over and over again every year, but these get bought as much for the roster as for the actual game. MMOs don't have that kind of luxury, as while people will indeed buy a game because it has Superman or Arthas in it, whether they stick with the game depends on what the game has to offer.

Again, I say all this because I'm not at all happy with contemporary MMO conventions. I want something else. I want choice. Right now, I have no choice, because City of Heroes is the only MMO out there that I'm aware of which is sufficiently different to at least CALL things something else. Right now, it's either City of Heroes or "everything else." As such, this game has no meaningful competition and I as a customer have no real choice in which game to play. Because this one is, quite frankly, the only MMO I've ever tried which doesn't suck.

Right now, if you're like me and you don't like the current MMO framework, you're SOL. That's all there is. Every game out there is about items, raids, stats, loot, dungeons and so forth, and every game which didn't start out that way gets those things after the fact. And if I'm looking for a game which specifically LACKS some of these aspects and has other aspects besides, then such a game doesn't exist, because every MMO that comes out, no matter how current, comes out looking very much the same as all the others, down to the interface, structure and even component names.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

Or alternatively, in an abandoned building within the safety of the slums, but ya, it still was annoying.

One thing it did help with was establish community within the game though. Not the best way, but it's also a reflection of one of the interesting problems that MMOs face. There are no real secrets anymore, the player-run wiki and boards do such a thorough job of exposing the content and how-tos that much of the game is already exposed. And, unfortunately, there is an expectation that folks use those resources.

Many of the structures of the MMO game are pretty self-evident. The tutorials do usually do an ok job of telling you the basic mechanics of how to play. In telling you "too fast" the issue is that most MMOs do design their systems to be accessible early on, so as to broaden their appeal. If you're a crafter, and you find out that you really can't start crafting until you get halfway to some arbitrary level, it's kind of frustrating and may send you off.

One thing I will note, CoH itself is pretty bad about spamming you with Tutorial Tips, imo.


Might I suggest a MUSH?

If the Wikipedia article on this acronym is anything to go by, those look like games (or "games") that lack any graphics. Not really what I'm after.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

In a way, MU*s are the grandfathers of the MMO genre, at least in the sense that many of the basic design elements of MMOs are present in game and roleplay-oriented MU*s; but even then, many of the gaming-oriented MU*s have stats, items, loot, and dungeons. Those kind of things, well, they transcend genre lines and they've been around as long as modern tabletop and video gaming.

There's a few examples which mostly or completely buck the trend, though. They're out there. They've just got their own lingo and jargon you have to absorb while playing, heh.

It's still true, however, that, as a rule, MU*s are text-based. There have been some experiments with graphical interfaces for a MU*, but all that I'm aware of have, overall, been failures.

I agree with your definition and it is a very good one, but I want to modify your second rule somewhat, as the way you define it is kind of... Non-specific. Let's say that in order for a game to qualify as an MMO, it must provide people at least one area for social interaction which permits the interaction of more people than the game is designed to actually play together. If your game is designed around having a team of five, then there has to be an area which allows more than five people to socialise. If your game is designed for five teams of five people each, then the game needs to have an area where 25 or more people can socialise. In short, the game's social aspects need to be applicable on a broader scale than its gameplay aspects.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

There is some trouble with 3d games, but I'd suggest looking at OpenSim environments, and it's corporate predecessor.

I'll admit, your definition is clearer than mine was, heh. I was vague about it because I've played a lot of different games I consider MMOs, each which handle that social aspect differently.

Mostly what stood out to me is that you used "more than a few people" in what is otherwise a pretty solid definition My response is to ask "Well, how many is more than a few?" and the answer I came up with was "more than can play together." Because, really, that's the point at which your social interaction transcends the bare essentials necessary to run the game side of things. When social interaction transcends gameplay, you have the makings of an MMO.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

... Was that a deliberate reference to the Tilverton sewers in Curse of the Azure Bonds?

If so, awesome. I loved those old gold box games.

If not... uh... it's been done.