ID:91391
 
Keywords: design
Not too long after framing the question, I believe I've already come up with a good answer.

The question being: How does one bring about that sense of "purpose" that sets a subscription-worthy MMORPG apart from normal games?

The answer: Immersion.


In one last desperate lark to avoid doing the kind of mental heavy lifting that game development involves, I found myself picking up S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat and was catapulted into a thoroughly excellent example. I'll let the video do the talking as to just how immersive it feels, but let me outline some of the game design decisions that went into it:
  • Minimal experience interruptions: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. has little to no instancing/load screens. For the most part, it feels like it's all one big flowing world.
  • Life has no shortcuts, and neither does a lifelike game: In S.T.A.L.K.E.R. you're forced to walk wherever you want to go. There are shortcuts, but they're realistically framed: you can ask somebody to lead you somewhere for cash, the game fades out and in and game time has passed.
  • A compelling world forces the player to pay attention: In S.T.A.L.K.E.R. charging blindly across a field to your next destination is likely to get you killed by hazardous "anomalies" and fauna. Consequently, the world feels appropriately dangerous to pay attention to.
  • A realistic world goes on without you: a virtual "alife" mechanism populates S.T.A.L.K.E.R. with a lot of fauna that is sometimes engaged in life or death struggles regardless of the players' involvement.
  • Only in games do you earn "points." A virtual world has more realistic accumulation: In S.T.A.L.K.E.R, there's a thoroughly believable economy that feels more like foraging for supplies instead of just hitting monsters until candy falls out. In fact, everything you recover from mobs they were using themselves, with nothing missing. (Except armor... perhaps the PC has an issue with seeing his enemies in the nude?) The personal advancement mechanic is completely hidden behind locating finding better equipment and upgrading it part by part with the assistance of engineers.
  • Belief should not be suspended, but it should be reinforced: S.T.A.L.K.E.R. features compellingly realistic weather, a great ballistics model, realistic NPC behaviors (such as humans sitting down around a camp fire and one pulls out a guitar) and strange phenomena is portrayed in a realistic manner. These little touches all work together to preserve the illusion.
In short, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. weaves a rich, compelling tapestry of the senses that fully engages the player. It even makes sacrifices to the gameplay to preserve the integrity of this experience. I'm not saying it's perfect, it does have a few suspension of disbelief issues such as the choice to have NPCs lapse in and out of Russian or enemies with guns trying to shoot at you through walls sometimes, but it's hard to find a better example. (Perhaps The Path, which artfully bends reality to its whims.)

When you have a single player game with great immersion, that's cool. When you have a massively multiplayer game with great immersion, that's worth $15 a month. To pay such a fee, players expect to do more than just have the right to play a game, they expect to have a key to a world. If your world lacks immersion, it doesn't feel enough like a world to count. Here is where a sense of purpose becomes a factor.

Unfortunately, fostering immersion is hard. Doing differently in any one of the examples outlined above leaves something feeling off (and that's probably not a comprehensive list). Every little infraction tests a player's suspension of disbelief, and it doesn't take much for immersion to be lost.
  • Star Trek Online and Champions Online lost all immersion with instancing, no attention to loot consistency, and thoroughly unrealistic environments and inhabitants. (Hrmph - I wonder if they'll humor a request for my lifetime subscription back.)
  • Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Fallout 3 were quite immersive, but then I reach to the end of the main plot and all context for the inhabitants was lost. The spell broken, the games' appeal was gone, even expansions seeming redundant.

  • Fort Zombie offers a pretty excellent feature list for immersion, with a scenario involving dynamically generated towns where you arrive to build a fort to survive a zombie apocolypse. However, it has a few big points that hurt it, such as crappy ragdoll physics.
Right now, I'm working in BYOND. You might think a 2D can't have immersion, but I would disagree. Look at Dwarf Fortress, for example. Even textual fiction can pull people in, after all. The imagination of the viewer is a powerful thing, one just needs to take care to operate with the proper frame of mind.
i understand what you mean about the lost appeal once finishing the main plot of Oblivion/Fallout; it's why when i first approached those two games (after having previous similar experiences elsewhere) i thoroughly completed every tidbit of sidequest content whilst only occasionally advancing the main plot. the only problem there was when i did reach the end game main plot stuff, my character was so ungodly powerful that all the "super dangerous boss" types were boring wimps

oh, and all those things you mentioned about Stalker of course aren't an exhaustive list of ways to introduce and retain immersion. WoW does it by nailing all the technical aspects of the game (so you don't constantly have your immersion broken by lame technical issues/glitches/etc) and by creating a world that doesn't feel stale or generic. there's nothing worse in an MMO than getting that staunch feeling that you're guy #11012389 doing the 'kill 10 wolves' quest
there's nothing worse in an MMO than getting that staunch feeling that you're guy #11012389 doing the 'kill 10 wolves' quest

I hear that. It's not that WoW avoids this entirely, but they have taken a lot of care with their quests to make sure they've avoided that "kill 10 rats" syndrome as much as possible by introducing some fairly good story context into each quest.

WoW also does a lot of good stuff such as limit instancing (you'll only see it with certain ELITE content or Battlegrounds) and introduce a lot of interesting artifacts to their zones.

WoW could go a lot further, though. If you think too hard about it, you can get easily bothered that no matter how many times you kill Big_Evil_Baddy_91243 he's just going to respawn anyway.
but then guy #11012390 gets upset because he doesn't get to kill Big_Evil_Baddy_91243 just because guy #11012389 already killed him, and so that's where the perpetual conundrum lies

WoW simply managed to strike the magical balance between all these important aspects of an MMO, causing it to attract a very large crowd; other MMOs attempt to fight back by over-emphasizing single aspects ("WE'RE ALLLLL PVP! COME GET SUPER HARDCORE PVP HERE!"). losing out on those other important pieces like immersion really hurts these other games, especially when they don't succeed very well in what they boasted about to begin with. (i'm looking at you warhammer)

also, as i'm sure you know WoW has been attempting to solve that problem of "my efforts yield no end result" with phasing. it really is cool to be in an MMORPG, complete an epic quest that causes the destruction of an entire area, and after the quest is over the flames are still burning and the area is still totally destroyed. you accomplished something, and it didn't magically revert itself!
Zaole wrote:
but then guy #11012390 gets upset because he doesn't get to kill Big_Evil_Baddy_91243 just because guy #11012389 already killed him, and so that's where the perpetual conundrum lies

There's a lot of things in MMORPG design that is deemed a bad idea which I like to regard instead as a design challenge. This is one of them.

WoW simply managed to strike the magical balance between all these important aspects of an MMO, causing it to attract a very large crowd

WoW certainly does make a lot of people go googly-eyed at its awesomeness given it's incredible success. Granted, Maple Story has twice as many players - should we derive, then, that it's twice as good of a game?

Nah - I don't think WoW did anything particularly magical. Blizzard took the EverQuest formula, made it very casually accessible all the way up until the end game, streamlined it in a nice engine which is compatible with a wide rage of clients, added a little bit of trademark Blizzard knowhow to the GUI, and borrowed a few tricks from other MMORPGs (such as instancing). Then they applied polish for somewhere on the order of a year prior to release.

Even then, it wasn't that awesome of a game to anyone who was already bored sick of EverQuest. However, they managed to fish in a whole lot of people who never played an MMORPG before from sheer bandwagon effect and Blizzard fanbase.

At least, that's my take on the matter.
Geldonyetich wrote:
WoW certainly does make a lot of people go googly-eyed at its awesomeness given it's incredible success. Granted, Maple Story has twice as many players - should we derive, then, that it's twice as good of a game?

i never said WoW was good merely because it has a large player base. even then, you can't compare the two because Maple Story is free, and WoW is not. RuneScape (a similar scenario) has 10 million active players, but only 1 million of them are paying customers.

Even then, it wasn't that awesome of a game to anyone who was already bored sick of EverQuest. However, they managed to fish in a whole lot of people who never played an MMORPG before from sheer bandwagon effect and Blizzard fanbase.

WoW certainly isn't just a playground for wide-eyed casuals; it has pooptons of challenging PvE and PvP content at endgame (a good 60% of all my time playing the game was spent at 70/80 doing nothing but arenas).

of course, i'm not trying to say that WoW is perfect or anywhere near it. i'm just giving my thoughts on why it became so popular and why i personally enjoyed it so much too

soo... immersion. yeah, that's what we were talking about
Sorry, I don't mean to go on and on about finding chinks in WoW's armor, but it is something I put a lot of thought towards.

I do know that WoW has a lot of players who never played an MMORPG before because a cursory glance at the chart shows that even if you add up the top 3 MMORPGs (not counting Lineage and Lineage 2 because the former is primarily Eastern and the later wasn't even out yet) you don't approach a 10th of WoW's population. That would seem to indicate a whole lot of new faces.

It's tricky business setting the bar at WoW. A lot of developers have tried to come up with "WoW killers" and had it thrown back in their face. Last I checked, they've decided that competing with WoW is a recipe for disaster. It makes sense, really: if players wanted to play more WoW, they'd just stick with the one game that does WoW best: WoW itself.

But, yes: immersion!

Actually, I'm not sure if I left much unsaid. Immersion is indeed really important to a compelling virtual world, but it's hard to do right.