Recently there was a discussion about the relevance of the “story” in a mmorpg that I haven’t considered directly because what was being said was obvious and I didn’t feel like adding something.

Now there’s another excerpt from the NY Times article that adds to this argument and allows me to offer another point of view:

“It’s the difference between an immersive experience and a mechanical diversion,” Mr. Metzen said. “You might spend hundreds of hours playing a game like this, and why would you keep coming back? Is it just for the next magic helmet? Is it just to kill the next dragon?

“It has to be the story. We want you to care about these places and things so that, in addition to the adrenaline and the rewards of addictive gameplay, you have an emotional investment in the world. And that’s what makes a great game.”

No, it’s not the next piece of loot, nor a linear, fixed story. The story is zero. Yes, zero if it doesn’t add to the gameplay. If the setting (and the immersion that Lum discussed) doesn’t become gameplay, doesn’t defines rules, doesn’t become interaction.

What keeps players coming back? The community:

Lum:
And now we come back to MMOs, where their particular form of pattern involves other people being involved. If you ask any dozen MMO enthusiasts which MMO they prefer the most (or, depending on how jaded, despise the least) and you will get a dozen different answers. Because the dirty little secret that designers don’t want to admit is that the actual game is completely irrelevant! No one cares, really, how well the pattern is crafted. Because what brings people back to MMOs isn’t the game, but the people within. No computer can come up with AI unpredictable enough to emulate your average bazaar shopper. Which is why, if you ask those dozen people which MMO they prefer, you get a dozen different answers. Because it’s where they are from.

So what does all this have to do with anything? Well, reading the links I started with, I read a great deal about the minutae of design theory. Gamers want their games to be hard! No, they want them to be easier! More casual friendly! More aimed at the core!

No, gamers are going to be bored. Because these things run on computers, and no matter how many pixels you cram into the pixel people, they’re still just pixels. Now, the community behind the games – they’re not quite as pixilated. And maybe perhaps that’s where we should be focusing.

But while this is fascinating and positive in a way that makes everyone agree, it’s still not directly useful from the ‘desinger’ point of view.

How you build a game that enhances this basic aspect? How you build the rules of the system so that the community grows strong and involving? I wrote many times what’s my point of view (like the “communal goals” debate) but the basic trait is that the setting, the story, the immersion, these elements together must go in the hands of the community.

Beware, it’s not about unloading the work to shape the world (aka: building content) on the players, like Smed suggested here below. It’s about shaping an interesting world but then immersing the players so that they interact with what you created. PvP, construction of cities, conquest of territory, politics, administration of the properties etc…

You can build a wonderful story and setting but then you don’t let the players glide on this like on rendered background in a SquareSoft game. The players must be THERE. They must interact with the content you created. They must affect the rules of the world. They must make the difference.

All within a closed system where the goals are set. No fancy sandboxes exploding out of control, but diverse tactical elements planned by the devs to follow precise rules. Still interactive and deep for the community.

Shift the focus to the setting and immersion, but not in the form of pages of text. Focus on: Interaction, living world, control, conquest.