Lum writes again about games but this time I didn’t feel so hooked by his words. Despite the premise was interesting: “why there aren’t any alternatives to the current MMO gameplay model”

I think the answer to that question is different depending from the point of view. For example it fits perfectly an explication based on the “risk” factor in all types of industry. Innovation is what delivers the quality and what allows something to improve and discover new potentials. At the same time innovation is risk. And the money-guys, those that are able to turn ideas into facts, don’t like risk. If they invest they must be reassured. So the result is a sort of “natural selection” process where the “better” games are saved while others are ditched progressively but without “sharp turns” or clear examples of creativity. Raph Koster repeated even early today that the subscription numbers shouldn’t become “everything” but this is how the industry works. The best ideas are those that bring money. The new (founded) ideas will be the previous ideas that brought the money. In this world quality is always equal to money, that’s the soul of the place where we all live.

So this is a suggestion, a possible point of view to answer the original question. There are other possible points of view. For example there’s Megyn’s point of view, which basically says that there’s nothing new because the “game designers” are always recycled. Game companies keep searching peoples with years of experience and shipped products. A guarantee? Yes, a guarantee of “same old, same old”. They exit from a door to reenter from another so it’s not too strange if then the games look all the same, with the same ideas and the same mistakes repeated.

Lum’s point of view is also interesting but this time I believe he wasn’t able to portrait it so perfectly like he is able to do. He glides on the reasons without convincing enough. Still, I believe that even this point of view is correct and (if I understood what he writes) is similar to a few concepts I repeated on this website. For example the representation of the avatar. I keep repeating that this genre is the result of a lot of influences. An inheritance. The role of the avatar, as the physical perception of the body and its relationship and interaction with the environment, are all elements strongly present in the “theatre”. For example.

The core issue is the cultural value, that layer that I keep bringing up when I criticize Raph Koster. Something successful, and in particular something successful at the level of the “masses”, has a deep cultural meaning. This is why I agree when Lum repeats that even Second-Life or Eve-Online, at the end, pivot around the exact same elements or cultural archetypes. Because a “mmorpg” isn’t an alien. It isn’t something that exists alone. Even a game is the result of so many cultural influences, archetypes, belief, perceptions. All that comes from the everyday life. What we have in a game, even in the most “fantastic” settings, is still directly inspired by our real world. Star Wars draws its life source from structural archetypes that are STRONGLY ACTUAL. It’s now, it happens now.

We simply love metaphors, symbols. Rebuses. Patterns in general. But these aren’t formal elements. They are cultural elements. Our culture, not something coming from an alien world or the product of an alien mind. Something *radically* new would simply go ignored because we wouldn’t be able to relate ourselves to it. Instead, when something produces a success it’s always because it went to “shake” something intimate (where “intimate” means something strictly personal. Ours.).

So if we do a step back at the importance of the avatar we can see easily that the importance lies in something we have in common. We live with our real body and if we are going to enjoy a form of entertainment it’s because we find there, once again, something we “understand”. A type of patter that is teaching us something, but that we are able to learn because it’s near our perception.

Why the physics is becoming so important in the games? Because it’s again a form of perception and interaction with which we can relate. It becomes a toy and a type of pattern we are able to recognize and use.

What are other types of gameplay mechanics that are strong in games (and hence heavily exploited)? Fear for example, the feeling of tension, sexual representations, heroes, betrayals. The first are way stronger because they happen BEFORE the roleplay. In a tense PvP situation you don’t roleplay the tension, you experience it directly. This is why often games try to push on these Out Of Character mechanics. They are direct, straight to our perceptions. But even the concepts of “hero” or “betrayal” are strong and deep-rooted in the culture. They just need enough immersion and mimesis to be triggered.

But all this still doesn’t justify the lack of ideas. These influences aren’t restricted to an hadful of mechanics. The possibilities of interaction are endless because our culture is vast and absolutely not simple. The point is, once again, that only those few attempts that went right are confirmed and repeated. While a real development is hindered. And then you need a completely new project to fix even the most superficial problems because the designers are too scared about applying even a minor shift in the gameplay.

The trick is to discover and develop those gameplay “switches” that are able to trigger a grin instead of a yawn. The scene isn’t dry as some peoples would like to demonstrate. Even our standard D&D setting isn’t arid of gameplay that isn’t grinding monsters. There’s so much to do and discover without pulling out crazy “five-bagger” ideas, psychedelic worlds or completely abstract spaces (or all this at the same time).

Tell me, for example, which game delivers a strong feeling of adventure. Or journey.

Sure, a lot is being done. But a lot more could be possible. If there was a less short-sighted attitude.

Even my “dream mmorpg” idea isn’t crazily creative or impossibly risky but I believe it would still develop easily a strong and inedited personality. Where the basic concept is simply to divide the whole landmass of a fantasy world in hexagons (like the old wargames or even different shaped regions ala Hearts of Iron). Then enable the various player-factions to effectively conquer all the nearby zones and build an empire. Ruling over cities, castles and towns would allow the guilds to spawn NPCs and give them simple schedules similar to RTS games like Warcraft 3. So you manage and distribute farmers, miners, builders. Creating an actual economy and a truly living world where you have a direct impact and interaction. With a complexity that can easily rise to the level of games like “The Settlers” without betraying anything that is making mmorpgs successful now. The “wargame” becomes an emergent layer where the players won’t have to “work” directly and will, instead, dedicate themselves to those activities that are considered fun. Leaving all the burdens to those NPCs that won’t complain about cutting a tree over and over and over.

If you trigger these processes it will be the game itself to tell you exactly what it needs to move on. You just need to observe and give a shape to what will spontaneously arise. This is what happens when we moved from endless, “mudflated” content to more cohesive structures (superficially branded as “sandboxes”).

– No time to reread, edit, correct typos, add links. Will do tomorrow. *yawn*