A list of events, so grand, it in fact, demands the need for chronology. Plus, nearly everybody else did it, so I want to as well.
The Corpnews Opened Pandora's Box.
Dundee Gave Some Insightful Thoughts and Opinions.
Ubiq Inspired to Etch Dual Stone Tablets.
Dundee Agrees to Agree; Also Spotted Hugging Kittens.
I Interject Wankery
Lum Gives a Shout Out on How Everybody is Right, and Wrong, and People are Still Broken But We Love Them Anyways... WHY DO YOU KEEP MAKING A CODERS LIFE HELL? WHY?!
Ubiq Wittily Rebuts.
And finally, to make sure I blow your mind, I finish off with a link to this very own post, creating a fiendish infinite loop of inanity.
Tremble.
But, getting to the point. Basically, in my first response, all I really did was go over Ubiq's commandments, agreed with essentially all of them, gave personal examples that I had experienced to back them up how I saw fit, then screamed and frothed at Commandment #10.
So, I suppose at this point, I can readily admit that for now, any debate left, is all about TEN baby. Ten being: "The best systems turn people into the content."
To which I was all: "People suck."
And Lum was all: "Yeah, they do, but they rule too. CRY NOW NOOB."
And then Ubiq was all:
"here are several exceptions I'd take to Anyuzer's counterargument.
First off, when I say 'players should be the content', I don't necessarily mean PvP. In fact, two of the examples I gave were non-PvP examples (City of Heroes 'design-your-own-hotpants' system and SWG's 'relax and watch the wookie do the funky chicken'). Systems that involve other players can be one of four or so varieties: I'd count competitive (pvp), cooperative (grouping in EverQuest), commercial (trading) and creative (seeing how suggestive a statue you can build just by stacking spoons). You could argue that simply socializing and/or bragging also belong in there, but I'm not going to include them since they don't start with 'c.
Second off, I don't think that PvP is inherently doomed. Let's not forget, the number 1 and 2 MMOs in the world are both PvP-centric (although perhaps living next to Kim Il-jung would put anyone on edge). While the conventional wisdom is that PvP will never succeed in the states, the conventional wisdom also had us believing we'd all be driving flying cars by now. Someone is going to shatter that myth in a big way. They'll probably do so by making the first American MMO where PvP feels, fundamentally, fair.
Third off, just because people suck doesn't mean that they aren't entertaining. Just ask Jerry Springer."
Which leaves me where I am. I suppose at this point, I have to say: "sorry, I didn't bother to really clarify on this one last time around. I suppose it just didn't occur to me."
The fact is, I only used PvP as an example because it has been one of the common systems we've seen touted by developers as being the magic key to perpetual content. Now, personally, I don't think PvP is the key to magical perpetual content. But I don't really think at the moment, that discussion is here nor there, apart from the fact that I think players can get as bored of PvP just as easily as they can get bored of PvE, and frustrated a lot quicker.
Really though, I don't care. PvP was only an example on how depending on other players sucks. Ubiq did use two other examples though, that I deigned to mention in favor of my PvP example and my NWN examples. So let's take a look at those now.
Ubiq Wrote: "For all of City of Heroes' innovations, it's most interesting feature was its character creation feature. The most fun to be had in the game is standing around town square looking at the fruits of other player's creativity."
I think, to translate, to make sure any response I come up with is at least based on a misunderstood statement first, I think what is being said is that in City of Heroes, the costume creation was a 'system', that 'system' produced 'content' which was the tons of players running around, and of course the time we all spent chuckling/gawking at them.
I'm not disagreeing with that in this case. I suppose that's one of the reasons I ignored it. But, I would suggest there is some flaws here. One of those flaws being, this is a perfect example of a 'system' that turned players into 'content', but can we identify the system as a beneficial, even applaudable one, for doing such?
After all, I think the point of contention here is, I don't see relying on other players for content as a really worthy goal. I don't mind it in small doses (grouping for instance), but on the large scale, I don't like entrusting my level of 'fun' or 'fulfillment' in the hands of another player. Whereas Ubiq is suggesting that the most praiseworthy of systems are the ones that do exactly this. And I think the reason this is being said, is because when players are content, from a development standpoint, they are exhausted far slower than any distant or environmental system will be.
So, back to the costume thing.
Was City of Heroes costume system good for the game? Upon a lot of retrospect... I have to say no. It didn't last. It was all fluff. Yeah, people became the content, but it only took players a few days of playing before they stopped looking at how cool other players were, and started concentrating on how boring the game was and how little depth it offered.
On the flip side, I'll say, it wasn't necessarily bad for the game either. To me it became a sort of 'neutral' point. And I say this because no matter what, players couldn't force their idiotic costume creations on me. They couldn't interfere with my time in any way, and so while I wasn't looking at the costumes any more, I wasn't complaining because it's not like somebody else got to decide what stupid costume I wore.
So in conclusion on this one. Was it good? Or bad? Beats me, but I don't think it proves a good point either way. It was fun, but didn't offer much more beyond that, which I would argue any good system has to.
Ubiq's next non PvP example was the one in regards to Star Wars Galaxies. The mental/fatigue entertainer system. Now, this was a 'system' which created 'content' (forcing players to gather in a Cantina). But, was it a beneficial one? Again, was this the sort of system MMOGs should be aspiring to?
And for this one, I believe I can say no. In fact, I feel more than anything, this system proves my point of how relying on other players for 'fulfillment' can suck. I had some good times in Galaxies. I had some bad times. Some of my worst times though would be playing in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere, have severely decreased mental fatigue, and then run to Assville with its Cantinas, only to find there was nobody there 'entertaining'. Now, if that wasn't annoying enough, let's talk about the times I went to a Cantina and it was full of people.
Well first off, the Entertainers (when I played anyways) usually were macroing/entertaining. As in, they weren't even at their keyboard (or maybe they were dual boxing). So it's not like a lot of content was had in those experiences. In other experiences, all the entertainers wanted was money.
In fact, more often than not, they were annoying money grubbing males, trying to do anything for credits, including cyber, or, you know, healing you. And if you didn't tip them well, they bitched about it.
Yes. This was getting more fun by the minute.
Here's the real thing though, I didn't mind the first month of playing. I didn't mind the first six weeks of playing. But you know what? After about two months, two and a half months, I didn't ever want to see a Cantina again.
The fact that I was forced to enter havens of cyber and scrounging, just so I could sit quietly, roll my eyes at the male on male flirting (well, one or both would be female avatars, but we all know what that means), alt+tab out of the game, surf the internet until I was healed, tip them, and then run off, nearly drove me insane. It wasn't 'content' at that point in time, it was tedious. Now, if a 'recovery station' was available instead of entertainers, and it was just put in as a money sink, while it would've been annoying, I would've over all had a better and possibly longer experience.
The thing is, I can socialize on my own. I don't need a game trying to force me to socialize, and I don't praise systems that attempt to force me to do the same, inorganically. Give me a chat window, and give me a task I can't complete alone. Trust me, I'll socialize without any of your help. Also, I'll socialize with the people I want, which is far better than being forced to deal with 'entertainers' or their other game equivalent. Because of this, I don't see how the 'best' systems are the ones that turn players into content.
It just evades me.
Why not create a mini game out of mental fatige? IQ puzzles, the quicker you complete them, the faster your mental fatigue heals up. In addition to these, if you wanted, you could add multiplayer versions (just think of FFVIII mini card game or something. It was a mental exercise, involved collecting and essentially had countless variables). To me that would've been content that would've been far less annoying, and less intrusive, than depending on entertainers.
Now, I'm not contesting that turning players into content is necessarily a bad thing, I'm simply disagreeing on the finer point that these aren't necessarily the 'best' systems to create. That's all. The entertainer system in Galaxies was in reality 'fine' (my bitching aside). Was it the best? Was it one I'm kicking my heels about, and refer to its brilliance all the time? No.
Which brings me finally to the PvP point. Some people assumed that when I referred to people who never got bored of PvP having an IQ below that of a gerbil, they assumed I was bashing PvP.
No, I wasn't, I like PvP, I was just bashing the people who claim to never get bored of it. Damn. I don't know what it is about the gerbil comments that gets peoples panties in a knot.
Either way, I like PvP. And, I'm not saying that PvP isn't something that should be in an MMOG. If you want my honest opinion about it, I think PvP is excellent. I think as a facet of a game, it can add a lot of depth, I just disagree with looking at it as an appropriate replacement for 'stuff' assuming players will be able to continually amuse themselves through the infinite loop that is PvP.
That's all. To me, PvP is simply not a perpetual answer.
Otherwise though, yeah, it's great. And hell, I think a successful North American PvP MMOG can be made and will be made. Why, if somebody dumped thirty million into my lap, I think I could even make it myself.
Of course, the key to it is that unlike the Korean MMOs, PvP alone does not replace everything else. I think the failing of this concept is actually a good example of "Experience driven development". Because, I think the flaw here is people say: "what sort of experience do I want my players to have when participating in PvP?" and the answer is: "Strategy! Sieges! Wars! Duels! Epic show downs! Possibly some assraping and the odd ganking!". To me though, the question should be: "What are my players going to experience in the world that is going to result in PvP?"
And I think this is why UO worked. Was it about the PvP? Or was it about the rest of the game being there, and the PvP being a simple broken side effect that was really enhanced by the rest of the world? Same deal with EQ (on a different level though). Did EQ PvP work because people searched down other people to kill them? Or did it work because while in the struggle for controlling the loot that dropped in a specific dungeon, epic battles were going to perpetually occur?
I'd vote for the latter. PvP in my opinion only works when the experience of the rest of the game results in PvP. And in my opinion this is where DAoC half works (by splitting up the worlds, and creating relics etc, in playing the PvE side of the game, it was only natural to become embroiled in the PvP side, which remained fun until all you were doing was PvPing because there was nothing else to do). Where Galaxies half works (I'm a Rebel! You're an Imperial! Because we're both Star Wars Geeks we must have a blaster fight to the bitter end!).
Anyways, this PvP addition is much ado about nothing. I'm just affirming the fact that I do 'like' PvP, but also think it's a good example on why the 'best' systems are not necessarily ones that turn players into content.
And finally, to the philisophical side of things.
People.
I made a harsh statement, which was that people suck. And, there was a sort of general murmur of resigned agreement. Yes. People do suck. But it was metered out with chimes of: "but we also play these games for people!" At which people scratched their heads in befuddlement.
Which is where, if somebody else is going to disagree with me, this is where they're probably going to do it. Why? Because right now, right here, I'm going to cought up a dark, dirty, scummy secret. I'm going to reach out to you. I'm going to bare my soul. I'm going to touch you, because, that's how close I've got to be to you.
Alright. Ready?
I, Ian Reid, aka, anyuzer, do NOT play MMOGs for the people...
There, I said it! I can hear your gasps now, but c'mon, give me a chance. Let me explain. You see, it's true. I don't play MMOGs for the people, and I'd in fact argue against the premise that many people who play, play them for the people.
Yes, this goes against pretty much everything said about these games ever, but I'm sticking to it. You see, over the years, after playing every single graphical MMOG essentially ever released, I came to realize something. I don't play these games because other people are in them. I play them because when I log in, nothing is given to me. There is no promise of me winning. No promise of me reaching the highest level, killing the big bad dragon, rescuing the princess, or finding the Uber Sword of God Slaying. There is none of that.
The irony here, is the reason this exists is because of 'The People'. It's simply a side effect, nothing more. A sort of red headed bastard child of the reality of having a lot of people participating in the same world environment. It's a matter of balance being forced. It's a matter of saying: "yeah, we know it's hard, but we can't give you a slider bar to decrease the challenge or else it wouldn't be fair to everybody else"
See, I don't want to sound like some awesome gamer (because I'm not), but I am a persistant one, and I can literally not think of the last Single Player game I picked up, and said: "damn, I can't beat this!" In fact, quite the opposite. Within ten minutes into any single player game, I know I'll beat it.
Why? Because single player games are designed for you to 'win'. They're designed that if you keep your nose forward, you can't screw up. As far as I'm concerned, in my mind, they're the tricycle equivalent of video games. They're designed with the reality in mind that you can't put together five buddies to kill a 'tougher' enemy. You have to be able to do it alone. And if you can do it alone, then if you're vaguely smart, you'll be assured of doing it.
I hate that. Bores the hell out of me. So, I play MMOGs. Not for the people, but for the side effect created by having a bunch of people. When I log into an MMOG, nobody is saying: "Well, if you can't get the highest level in two weeks, we'll just give it to you!" or "Yeah, this dungeon is too hard. Don't worry, just punch in left right, left right, up down, up down, select start and you're a god!"
They're saying: "well, we design things to do for everybody, this includes a group of thirty people, and a group of one or two people. What you get, and where you get is up to you." And I love that. It fulfills me in a way single player games can't, and never will.
Am I playing the game so I can go cyber with a wookie though? Or so I can go find a group and hang out and chat all night? Or so I can join an uber guild and run my littler uber guild flag around? No.
Yes, I may have done all of those things in the past (I was drunk! It was dark! The wookie had a sexy voice!), but what motivated me to do those things was the innate challenge of the game itself, not the attractive socialization aspect.
Which is where I think we CAN take a lesson from Online First Person Shooters (Counterstrike/etc). Can you claim those people come back, again and again, for the people? No. Can you claim those people come back, again and again, because the experience is always different, and therefore fulfilling? No. The reason FPS games are as popular as they are, is because when you drop onto that island in Battlefiend 1942, you know that nobody is handing you a gold star and saying: "YOU AR WINNAR!"
Victory isn't promised, and it's that level of fulfillment which is attractive, not the fact that you get to 'play with people'.
I know, I know. I can already predict the cries: "BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COMMUNITY? FOR THE CHILDREN, WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE COMMUNITY?"
Hey, I've been a huge advocate for the importance of community in the past. Upon first glance, it might appear that this contradicts my admittance that I don't play these games for the people, but I don't think it does. You see, I don't 'play' these games for the people. I 'stay' for the people. And that's where community is important in my opinion. Player retention. By having people naturally form social groups and personal bonds in a certain environment, they are more likely to return to said environment to reaffirm those connections.
They come for the challenge and the depth, they stay for the friends and the bumpfuzzling.
And I think this is a large misconception had amongst industry developers. People don't play MMOGs for the people, stop thinking they do. We play for the challenge. We stay for the people. It's them that will endear and attach us to the world.
The challenge makes these games the best games ever, the people make them the best experience ever.
Which isn't really that far off the reason I do this (write pointless updates late into the night that is). I love talking about the games, and how the games can be made better games, but I'm inspired by the fact that, without ever talking face to face, a Shadowbane developer, a Star Wars Galaxies developer, a Mythic developer, and a Wanker, can hold a civil intelligent discourse without ever coming face to face.
There's something damn cool about that. Something... worthwhile.
I think that's all I have to say about that for the moment. And yes, I promise, MMOG 'news' back on schedule later today. Hell, it's the release of EQII. That deserves in the least an obligatory nod, and probably a rant.
Until then, yeah.