You say you want a revolution?

“You say you want a revolution?  Well you know, we all want to change the world.” – John Lennon

““I’m not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it.” – Niccolo Machiavelli

The status quo in MMOs is, honestly, a bit dreary.  Anyone who’s played WoW has a pretty good idea what the core gameplay of LotRO, AoC, WAR, CoX, and virtually every other mainstream MMO is like.  I don’t mean just the juicy DikuMUD core, which admittedly needs to be freshened, but more essentially the idea of a static world.

In any mainstream MMO, players don’t really change the world in any appreciable manner.  Instead, they get static quests from static NPCs, they kill monsters that respawn immediately, and at the end of the day everything is exactly as it was before.  Oh, there’s some negligible lip service paid to the idea that the world changes based on one’s actions, but this is a facade hiding the true static nature of MMOs.

Why is the content static?  Why aren’t players allowed to change anything?  Fundamentally, it comes down to the way content is currently generated.  The prevailing model for quests, for instance, has quests given by NPCs, to serve the interests of said NPCs.  Players come and go, but Joe NPC will always be there, and he’ll always speak to every new PC in the same manner.  Joe NPC has an errand he needs someone to run, and a fair amount of work went into designing the errand; quest design, writing, coding, building the assets needed, etc.  Since Joe’s quest is prefabricated and static, it stands to reason that Joe needs to be static as well.  Though players might want to, they cannot remove Joe from the game; at best, they can kill him and he’ll respawn soon after.  After all, what’s the point in spending time and effort creating content if that content won’t be available to players?

I’ve spoken before about why I don’t like the Quest Log.  Let’s take that idea one step further here.  If, instead of a log full of static quests with no meaning to the player, whose text few players will bother to read, and whose outcome is binary (success/failure, where failure usually means you can repeat it until you succeed)… what if MMOs offered players the chance to customize their own goals?

Say I’m playing some type of warrior in a fantasy setting, and I want to get a new piece of equipment.  Currently, I would go to websites that tell me where I have to go, what static content I need to consume (typically, which instance I need to go to and which boss must be killed) to achieve this goal.  At the end of the process, I’ve done exactly what everyone else has done, and I have the same item.  Yay for individuality and immersion!  But instead, I’d strongly prefer to have a quest created for me – just for me.  I’d input the general goals (e.g. I want a nifty sword with some vague attributes in X general range) and the game would provide me with a customized quest, with a series of subquests, tailored to my character.  If I succeed, I’ll have a unique item.  If I fail, that quest is gone forever and I have to request a new one.  The better the sword I request, the harder the quest will be; it shouldn’t of course be possible for a newbie knight to gain Excalibur.

There’s a massive change in approach needed to make this feasible: static content would need to give way to procedurally generated content.  This is difficult in that static content can be lovingly crafted by hand, with every detail worked out in advance to optimize flow; in short, it has great opportunities for polish.  Procedurally generated content is created in response to circumstances that the designers might not always have predicted fully, so there’s potential for strange errors and glitches.  Dialogue approaches would have to be fundamentally revised, for instance, using massive tables for e.g. greetings, exclamations, dialectical uniqueness, etc.  instead of the dialogue trees now favoured by most designers.

One of the more difficult things to figure out is how much agency to allow players.  If they can e.g. kill everything and destroy everything, then rest assured that some players will just seek to destroy and ruin everything, reducing the enjoyment of other players.  Safeguards need to be in place to discourage, punish, and sometimes outright prevent abuses (depending on the abuses in question).  More importantly, all players would need to feel they had something to lose; this is what prevents people from acting in wantonly destructive manners in real life, after all.

The advantages here are several and I think impressive.  Most essentially, the world would no longer need to be static.  If e.g. a player completed a quest to kill an NPC, that NPC would stay dead by default (in some fantasy settings it might be possible to raise the NPC from the dead, but someone would have to do so, instead of the game, by design, doing it automatically).  If a house were burned down completely, that house would remain gone, though a new house might be placed there in time.  Players could shape the world according to their desires, again with safeguards in place to make sure the world doesn’t become dominated by the ruthless.  Above all, the game has to remain playable for all players, especially newbies.  It’s not always desirable to give full agency to players, so maybe most buildings couldn’t be destroyed completely; that way towns would retain their basic shape and maps could remain basically static.

In order to create a dynamic world like this, a wholly new approach to design is warranted, which is I admit a major hurdle.  But at the end of the day, I think players would be far more immersed and interested in what’s happening.  Nobody would skip quest text because that quests would actually mean something.  Great heroes and terrible villains could meaningfully impact the world, and people would care about and remember their actions, because those actions would lead to changes everyone could perceive.  Perhaps most appealing of all to the designer is the ease with which the game could then be expanded; the greater the reliance on procedurally generated content, the simpler it is to make the world larger.

Maybe someday this’ll catch on, but it’s a drastic change to approach and this industry isn’t known for embracing change.  Instead of revolution, we have tiny iterative steps.  The investors who fund MMOs don’t want something new; they want a refined and better-polished version of what’s already popular.  Sadly, that’s led us to a lot of games that are essentially clones of each other.


5 comments so far

  1. Tyger on

    Have you tried the game “The Witcher” by Code Red? It’s very like what you’re describing, and I believe that they are currently working on an MMO based on this sort of dynamic interaction.

  2. foolsage on

    I have, yes. I quite enjoyed its atmosphere though I found the combat rather pedestrian.

    Single player games quite often allow this kind of change – providing players the opportunity to drastically change the world according to their actions – but the problem that concerns me is that MMORPGs pretty much never do.

  3. Tesh on

    MMOs can’t provide that sort of agency; there’s always some idiot that will take advantage of it. That’s the nature of the internet.

    Also, your conclusion points to the major villain in this piece: the investor. When games are made for the love of game design, and for the adulation of the gamer, they can be magical things. When they are constructed by calculating beancounters to satiate the demands of bloodsucking investors, the life will inevitably be drained.

  4. foolsage on

    Tesh: I agree that MMOs don’t provide this sort of agency, but remain unconvinced that they cannot in principle. Even in real life, it’s estimated that around 1% of the public are psychopaths, and it’s certainly true that on the internet people feel free to explore their less-socially-acceptable sides. I feel however that there’s a way to overcome these obstacles, by providing a sense of investment for each player (which limits sociopathy) and by building in failsafes. Investment could come in many forms, e.g. permadeath, punishment for crimes, or having property/influence to lose (this only works if said property or influence are important to gameplay). Failsafes could include things like having some assets be indestructible, having differential respawn rates based on importance, etc.

    And yeah, it’s all about the investors at the end of the day. They’re the reason we keep seeing the same games again and again, with facelifts and mild updates.

  5. […] this seems pretty tedious to me.  I know, I know, I’m beating a dead horse here, but bear with […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: