note: any post that starts with "ARCHIVE:" is something that I wrote either for an older blog or in some other location, but deemed worth of copying over to this.
In the various MMO forums in which I spent an unhealthy amount of my free time, I've come to notice a trend in arguments about grouping. People are constantly arguing for and against more group content. While grouping is an integral part of all MMOs, I think there are two types of games in this regard: The type in which community is created through necessity, and the type that community has to be forced upon. There are upsides and downsides to both, and they're pretty much mutually exclusive.
I can see myself enjoying both for different reasons. The obvious benefit of the WoW/Rift/LOTRO-type MMO is that it allows for small accomplishments without time or social commitment. Many people have hectic schedules and can't commit to playing for extended periods of time. A lot of people also have responsibilities that may come up unexpectedly. Even with a significant chunk of free time, many like to avoid the social obligations of grouping. I know that, sometimes, even when I have a lot of free time, I avoid grouping because I feel that I might get bored and want to do something else, or I'm simply in the mood to leisurely enjoy the game at my own pace. I wouldn't want to let a group down by leaving early "because I feel like it," so , in these situations, I'd like to have the ability to enjoy solo play.
On the other hand, there are a lot of benefits to the FFXI-style MMO. The first benefit is obviously the community aspect. By using game mechanics to push players together in a meaningful way (one that requires communication), social interaction is inevitable. This will lead to people knowing each other and feeling less disconnected from the community. The other benefit that this causes is a boost to immersion. MMOs are meant to be online worlds, right? When you have to work together and get to know your fellow adventurers, it really starts to feel like a living world (dynamic events or not). It also allows for more complex, group-based mechanics. Since people will have to group up anyway, there's no need to make the mechanics simple enough to be understood or undertaken alone.
The disadvantages to each are that the upsides of the other are impossible to have in conjunction with their respective benefits. If you allow for casual, rewarding solo play, people will invariably flock to the path of least resistance. Even if there is a lot of group content, the existence of equally rewarding solo content will be too enticing for players to pass up. The few that resist will be both left behind and lonely, and there will never be enough people to make the group content rewarding. As such, you can't create an inherently community-focused game without excluding an easy way to succeed alone.
Though they both bear the title of MMORPG, they are very different beasts. It's a decision the developers have to make early on. The reason that the majority of major, big budget MMOs are going with type A is because the accessibility will always bring more players. Type B games still exist, though. They have simply been forced into the classification of "niche" by their obvious business-related drawbacks. So, until retiring into a virtual reality tube at the age of eighty becomes a real possibility (come on, people, I'm counting on you. You have 60 years to get it done), investors will be unwilling to spend big bucks on that type of game.
No comments:
Post a Comment