Do What You Want, OKGO
Why are so many gamers content to just do as they are told? Who exactly is to blame for not exploring the world of an MMO? (Which is, after all, still a game, not a pure world simulator, for better or worse.) Why, in one of the most potentially interactive entertainment mediums, are games so constrained or controlled, and so many “consumers” still so passive?
Outside of the games themselves, why do players offer critique, punditry or backseat driving without seeking to understand before demanding to be understood? I guess it’s always just easier to blame the other guy.
Why do devs cater to player trends? Might I suggest that at least some of them still want to make money? That may be a tough question: make a game specifically to make money, or make the game you want to make and try to market it?
There’s a place for products that are built from a singular vision and that are uncompromising in how they approach it, counting on their labor of love to find the right audience instead of opening the tent doors to all the camels. I suspect everyone has their pet product that might fit this mold. I hope we never lose that corner of the game industry. (Though it is changing thanks to budgets and tools.)
…but it’s still an ecosystem of niches, not a way to survive the mainstream. There’s gold in them thar hills, but it’s risky business. The less risky mainstream might stumble onto a gem here and there, but by its nature, it’s more about keeping that shareholder cash flowing, and that means you can’t rock the boat much.
Oh, and challenge is still a variable, completely dependent on the perception of the player. Too many players (and devs) don’t understand that. There is no golden equation that collapses the player skill distribution curve into the Perfect Game. Even player-driven variables (difficulty settings, for one) can’t possibly cover all possible players.
So what do you do? You make the game you want to make, and you play the games you want to play.
…and let others do the same. In a market that is ever more digitally distributed, there’s room for the mid-size games with modest scope and other assorted indie products (including hardware, apparently, which is fascinating). The niches can work… but it may not always be easy. They can’t try to be AAA games (barely interactive movies), they have to embrace the niche and, well… do their own thing.
As one author noted…
Isn’t the point of an RPG — MMO or otherwise — to let me roleplay what I choose?
Not every game is one of those RPG things, but games from Puerto Rico (an interesting example as there are no dice rolls and very little mechanical randomization; the most important random elements are the other players) to Chess to Rook to StarCraft rely on player choice. Players need to make choices (not just solve problems), and devs need to let them… even if that means letting them choose not to play their game because it’s too different. We all need to be confident in our choices and not worry so much about catering to anyone else. I think we get better games and better gamers that way.
What do I want? It’s hard to want anything without having meaning. Imagine going to a remote, untouched island and offering a resident a car or a crate of oranges. There’s a good chance he’d take the oranges because the car is utterly meaningless. He doesn’t perceive it as useful, whether for transportation or status. We need meaning and information to even begin to make good choices about what we want.
In a crafted world (as opposed to an emergent one), devs provide much of that meaning. Is this instance a pretty place to look at, a challenge to overcome, or a source of power (loot)?
Except physical needs, much of what we want is contextual, relative, learned and taught, so it is pointless to just say “do what you want” when what a person wants is not purely an internal desire.
But let’s say we “do what we want”, how do we go about doing that? I want to go for a hike in the woods, how do I get there? I could walk, but it’s pretty far. I could drive. I could ride my bike. Note that distance, road safety, bike lanes, all of these affect how I do what I want, even when I am focused on doing what I want.
I think it’s fair to say that games require rules that bracket player options and give structure to a game world. That’s not what I’m writing about here, though. This is more about gaming on the whole and how players make decisions between games, and how devs choose to make their games. So yes, you’re right, I’m just looking at something different.
Now, this is quite the heavy summary, hehe…I wouldn’t know where to start or what to address first. So, I’ll just go out on a limb here and say this: knowing what you want and knowing what’s good for you are 2 very different things.
What I mean in particular is that devs should have the knowledge and competence to make more informed decisions than their players, or should have. to clarify: there was this brilliant article on Gamasutra that debated the big issue of short-term vs. long-term effects in MMOs and while many players want ‘fast’, ‘more’, and ‘XY’ today, that isn’t necessarily a good thing for the game longterm. I’d like devs to have an ‘overall concept’ and insight about their game and its mechanics and I expect them to see to what’s needed to keep it interesting longterm, rather than just satisfying current trends and demands of their audience. unfortunately that often isn’t the case, or just less and less because everything is about money, now that every last tie has realized there’s lotsa cash in MMOs. (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/2157/soapbox_why_virtual_worlds_are_.php)
Also, on a more general note, it’s difficult to ‘do what you want’ in a game when the game is trying to be everything and nothing – when a game you enjoy today is constantly subject to change because other players do ‘what they want’ too with it, and get it to change for everybody. it’s clashing interests and I can like to explore as much as I want, if the game won’t allow it I have to move on.
We can never all of us do whatever we like in the same game; such is not my definition for an MMO anyway. that’s my definition for a sim like second life. from an MMORPG I expect some orchestration and setting, a consistent world and ongoing ‘story’. and someone needs to dictate that to some extent, although I’m all for player impact. I don’t see how you could realize such a thing without also forcing certain content on the player or create requirements (like attunements) he might not always enjoy. you simply can’t do both – or maybe you can tell me how.
Aye, “live” games like MMOs have a particularly hard time making *anyone* happy as they keep changing the rules. You simply can’t make everyone happy, and devs should just build the game they want to build and let it stand on its own merits. That’s not a good way to appeal to the mainstream “big tent” audience, though, so it’s a more risky proposition.
Oh, and “knowing what you want and knowing what’s good for you are 2 very different things”… so very very true.
…I suppose that there’s another question buried in here: What exactly are we talking about when we say “RPG”? There’s the “progression number crunching” that the acronym has been used for as time goes on, but at some level, is it really “playing a role” any more? And what role? One we define for ourselves or are we just putting on a skin the devs have made for us in a story they want us to crawl through?
There’s always a balance between devs and player agency. I think that will be different per game, but I do think it’s important that that balance be defined precisely and carefully considered.
So… to answer your final question, Syl, I think you can have player impact and dev stories, but they do run at cross purposes, so they have to take turns… almost like the Final Fantasy method of “play game, watch movie, play game, watch movie”. Players and devs take turns leading the dance.
Well, capitalisms currency is terrorism. So how much can someone feel they can make their own game in such an evironment?
Yeah, sounds extreme, but aren’t you afraid of losing your job? That’s fear, isn’t it? Yeah, I know – seems like two concepts with too way big a space in the middle to draw a connection between the two. Doesn’t mean there isn’t a connection though.
On a different subject, there is some benefit to speaking to writing a game not just for yourself. It means you can reach genuinely dissenting audiences, instead of just reaching people who by and large already agree with you.
And on exploration – why people don’t do it? Because it’s pointless? When practiced it’s an echo of our reflexive habits in real life transposed onto an environment where those habits are rendered pointless? The people who don’t explore are actually being sensible. I say this having climbed to the top of mountains in game myself more than once.
“Players and devs take turns leading the dance.”
Well, that’s what I would call the perfect scenario myself.
But if we’re talking ‘RPG’, the truth is I do not believe MMOs today are still pledged to the idea of roleplay. it might still be part of the genre label, but they have very little or nothing of RPGs and they will shift even further away from that. it are exactly many of the aspects of roleplay that have been removed continuously in WoW and other games over the last few years. roleplay is full of sim-aspects, narrative and what many probably call ‘timesinks’. it’s just not an MMORPG-audience anymore out there.
I’m not sure I’d call ‘awesome cutscene’ and ‘jog around the landscape’ as taking turns. Sounds more like the devs taking a quick smoke break in between continuing their turn.
[...] We need to understand our customers. We still might have the courage or bullheadedness to do things our way instead of the “standard” way, but we shouldn’t do it from a position of [...]
[...] have problems, of course. It will. It’s just that if you learn to accept a game for what it is and see what’s there, rather than what you want to see, you might just learn [...]