[MUD-Dev2] [Design] [REPOST] Food in MMOs

[Tess Snider]

On 5/18/07, Lachek Butalek <lachek at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/17/07, Tess Snider <malkyne at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Aren't enemy corporations run by players?  Psychologically speaking,
> > that's apples and oranges.
>
> Why? In the Eve Online case, it's fun and exciting gameplay. Why is it
> not fun if the exact same thing happens, requiring the exact same
> gameplay, but driven by the game engine?

Let's talk about _The Count of Monte Christo_, by Alexandre Dumas.
This is the story of a fellow named Edmond Dantes -- a young sailor,
who is betrayed by jealous mates, and tossed into a dungeon, to rot.
He manages to eventually escape the dungeon, and he returns home to
seek revenge against the traitors.  Thus begins a tale of intrigue,
romance, tragedy, and really awesome sword fights.

Now, let's talk about a different Edmond Dantes, living in the future,
as a crewmember on a spaceship.  Due to some decision made by the
ship's computer AI, Edmond gets dumped on the nearest penal colony
planet, to rot.  He manages to eventually escape the planet, and...
has no way to get any satisfying revenge against a computer.  The
computer doesn't care if you hurt it.  It's just a computer.

Rampaging algorithms will never present the same sort of
possibilities, tactical challenges, or excitement that a real, live
human being can.  Deep Blue will never care if you beat it at chess,
and if you suddenly present it with a problem that isn't chess, it's
fundamentally doomed.

> As a follow-up, what if a "boss monster" attacks while controlled by a
> GM? Worse or better than if it attacks at random by game rules? Worse
> or better than a player assault?

I think that depends on the circumstances.

> And if your game doesn't have permadeath, who cares? I'm not sure if
> maybe I'm the exception, but when playing WoW I really couldn't give a
> hoot if some monster killed me, since the penalty equated to
> absolutely zero.

I care.  At the bare minimum, I'm spending time running back to my
corpse that I could've spent doing something more interesting.

> Correction: The game required you to be able to defend yourself from
> assorted critters based on the location you chose to set up your
> mining equipment and shop.

There was no choice in the matter.  Monster spawn points could appear
anywhere that you could set up a shop and/or mining equipment.

> Had the game been designed more to your satisfaction (which in this
> case happens to coincide with "more realistic") you would have been
> able to hire guards to protect your valuable mining and retail
> operation from indigenous wildlife, which would provide gameplay
> opportunities for more combat oriented players, or (if the game
> supported hiring NPC guards) would become more costly and may force
> you to reconsider the fiscal benefits of mining in such a hostile
> region.

There were not non-hostile places to mine.

Had it been more realistic, I could've built my shop in a CITY, where
people USUALLY build shops, in the real world.  Or hell, Tosche
Station.  I hear they've got power converters there...

But, my point was that you don't have to be a raging powergamer to
dislike feeling vulnerable and helpless.  Even tailors, dancers, and
moisture farmers have to survive, before they can ply their trades.

> > Well, the challenge here is having a reward schedule that is going to
> > be sufficiently satisfying to the player.
>
> No, the issue is that few games have managed to disconnect character
> advancement with player satisfaction. In fact, as you mention, most
> games revel in it, and use it as a crowd control method.

And they have been rewarded with excellent subscriber numbers, and vast profits.

Whether it is from character advancement or some other mechanism, some
kind of reward schedule is important for these sorts of games.
Character advancement and loot acquisition have just been extremely
successful mechanisms for this, in the MMO space, thus far.  From a
purely business perspective, it's a model that's well-understood, and
low-risk.  But, even a massively multiplayer furniture-acquisition
game involves some kind of advancement, even if that advancement is
simply the stunning decor of your apartment.

> Sorry, I made that one too easy to respond to. Let me try again.
> WHY would RKO be inherently more fun to play than a game featuring
> gameplay just as involved and complex, though it centers around
> economy and crafting rather than killing mobs?

As a thought experiment, describe for me the first hour of the Wheat
Farmer Online newbie gameplay experience.

> Wheat farmers learn to grow wheat in new places, or learn to develop
> strands of wheat, or learn what factions are best for contracting the
> milling of wheat, or who might want to buy really high-quality flour.
> It all depends on how complex (or realistic) you want to make it.

Out of curiosity, have you ever played ATITD?  (I ask that only
because you might enjoy it.)

> > What is the hindrance in Tetris?  What about Bejeweled?
>
> Neither of those games have anything in common with MMOs. Puzzle
> Pirates perhaps, on the surface, but without the meta-game Puzzle
> Pirates wouldn't be called an MMO.

Ah, but you missed my point.  People get confused about games,
sometimes, because they get distracted by all the fancy baggage.
Sometimes, you have to strip all of that out to remind them what
"gameplay" is.  My ultimate test for blanket statements that people
make about gameplay is Tetris.  So, for example, every time somebody
tells me that "story" is the most important thing in games, I ask them
what the heck the story in Tetris is.  There isn't one.  So, the
statement doesn't ring true to me.

So, you say something like "Without hindrances there is nothing to
overcome. With nothing to overcome, there is no game," I have to pull
out the Tetris test again.  If it fails the Tetris test, I'm going to
call you on it.

> I maintain that generally speaking, Explorer types aren't fond of
> teleportation or fast travel, given my experience with that type on
> message boards and the like.

I don't know which forums you're reading, but I can say this: Forum
posters are a particularly vocal self-selecting group of players who
have often been found to not really be particularly representative of
anything but... forum posters.  Really, game forums are a kind of
hardcore feature.  The vast majority of WoW players have never posted
on the WoW forums.

> I can't prove it, and you can't prove the
> inverse. Nick Yee or Richard Bartle might have a study or a book
> reference somewhere, but we don't. So I suppose we'll have to agree to
> disagree on that point, until someone proves either of us wrong.

I doubt either of us can prove anything with any data that's out there already.

Yee has largely come to the conclusion that Explorers either don't
exist, or are lumped under another motivation category.  Though, I've
always disagreed with the methodology of lumping game mechanics
junkies under the Explorer banner.  I think it's erroneous, and that
it confuses the data.  They are not the same thing as geographic
explorers, at all.  In my experience (and his research backs me up on
this), game mechanics mavens are achievers.  A true geographic
explorer is driven by social and achievement motivations, but they are
also driven, in part, by a motivator which I don't think is addressed
in Yee's work: Neophilia.

Tess