Another recurring topic in this genre is “instancing” Vs “persistence”. I’m not going to get involved with it again because I already expressed my opinions diffusely. I started with a glance here, then I expanded slightly the idea with a lot of redundancy, Stephen Zepp brought up the problem again and the discussion lead to delve more in the gameplay toward a different attitude where I explained some of my ideas. On Terra Nova another discussion lead me to draw a distinct line between “PvE and PvP” mirroring exactly, at the same time, the line between “instancing and persistence”. The result is that the design turns over. How you build PvE is the opposite of how you build PvP.

“Instancing” is a shape. A shape that will determine if what you want to put into it will fit or not, so it’s important that you choose the shape for its content and the content for its shape. PvP and PvE are also shapes for different types of content. These are basic oppositions, basic design structures. Essential dichotomies: “PvE vs PvP” and “instancing vs persistence”. My point is that they not only come in pairs, but they are also linked one with the other, PvE with instancing and PvP with persistence. Isn’t one of the main duties of a designer to choose suitable structures?

It’s the reason why in my idea for the “dream mmorpg” I tried to plan the structure of the game-world trying to put both parts where they belong and consequently draw all the best they have to offer. But so why that “pessimistic” title at the top? Because these discussions aren’t concrete. They are ideas. And not all ideas are easily actualized. Because, as per definition, they are simply “potential”. So the question changes in: why I’m sure that the path of persistence is going to be ditched?

The reasons are in the market. What happens isn’t that the ideas shape the market, but that, instead, it’s the market to set the trend and drag along the ideas. It’s another “upside down” process. The market isn’t a designer. It is a reaction. But, even if just a reaction, it mantains a strong impact on everything, to the point that it sets its *own* reactions. Big Bartle underlined the same point because the “audience” follows a similar behaviour. Supposedly are the developer to plan ideas, give them shape and then propose them to the “audience”, or playerbase. But at some point it’s the playerbase to take the lead, put deadlines, ask for precise features and decide what will be developed next. It’s a delicate process.

The problem is that these situations need an interpretation. Since the market is a mere reaction it cannot “remember”. It has no perception of history and it isn’t able to think outside the box to understand the reasons why something happens or happened (or will happen). Why something is effectively successful. It’s like a dream taken for its straight meaning without considering it as a symbol. Symbol: something standing for something else. The market is blind about this “something else”. The symbols, the reactions are straight. No interpretation. Direct meaning.

But, again, the market isn’t only a reaction, it also drags itself along, exactly like Big Bartle explained. All this brought to what I wrote on Grimwell recently:

“Worlds” are NOT the future because we do not have meaningful and successful examples of them to suggest a direction to the dumb guys who hold the money and are able to do something in the concrete. And we also do not have awesome designers leading projects that are heading that way. It. Won’t. Happen.

Things can change in two cases:
1- When there are big successes of $$$ that set a trend that will make everyone jump in the bandwagon (and, in general, fail because noone is able to “read” why the first example was so successful in the first place)
2- When there are geniuses and an infinite list of lucky shots that are able to join good ideas with their concrete realization.

I don’t see this happening anytime soon.

Now the argument becomes more complex. Finally someone else is starting to see how I also expect things will go. Quoting Rich Vogel:

People go to the next shiny thing.

It’s fun because I disagree basically on every point he made. This point included. But it still allows me to explain how I believe things will develop. The time for steady, rock solid subscriptions is over. Peoples will stop to watch the same movie over and over. The “genre” isn’t anymore about factions built around two games. Rich Vogel says “communities are portable”, “Today’s audience is more casual” and “People go to the next shiny thing”. But he forgets *why*. He observers what happens, put that on a nifty list. But *why* that happens? Peoples move for dissatisfaction, not for greed. Peoples cancel from World of Warcraft because of the queues, or because of the lack of updates but at the same time the genre comes up as an emergent level. It’s not anymore a single title, a single experience. You start from a point and then you look around for something similar that is able to better fulfill your *new* expectations. This is why EverQuest2’s exploit is a malicious winner.

With the time the players will become more and more casual subscribers. One element is the consequence of the other. If the games try to appeal the casual players they will also obtain casual subscriptions. The life span of a “world” will shrink. New games will require a *strong* impact and all the resources focused on that aspect. The market becomes a “zerg rush” in a similar way to what happened with the other types of entertainment: movies, television, music and so on. In Japan they call their typical phenomenon as “idols”. Excessively famous singers that simply vanish after a six-month span. Vanishing to be replaced. It’s the eritage of the consume society. So the trend isn’t anything new if you just look just some more from the outside.

What’s the direct consequence? It mirrors what I wrote above. The market not only reacts as it reacted till today. The market starts to set the standard, it demands actively and it will determine what will be delivered. This means that, with these elements, the optimization of the process will just lead to more games, coming out more quickly, fighting furiously for a slice of the pie. To do this they’ll need as many subscribers as possible, those that gladly jump from a game to the other and that will also easily jump away even from this new game that temporarily stole them.

From the production process point of view (the only one that matters, it seems) the best way is to develop quickly types of games that are able to be successful in a short period of time. Who cares if they do not hold subscribers? This would require again to “think outside the box”. Instead it’s the market to drag along the ideas and the result is that the developers will second what happens. If the market wants zerg rush successes forgotten in six months, this is what will be delivered. If it will become increasingly harder to work on the persistence (both of the world and the subscribers), the developers will simply run in the opposite way. They’ll push out brand new worlds every six months that are designed and expected to “expire” with that timespan.

What will rise to the visible level of the “news” is about those emergent winners. Like City of Heroes. Noone cares if they will fall months later or if they’ll simply vanish. Because they are consumables. Designed to be used and forgotten.

It would make sense to believe (like I do) that “worlds” aren’t supposed to “expire”. That the development should go exactly in the opposite direction, allocating more and more resources, developing the structures of the game even more radically. But this isn’t what happens nor what will happen. Another path is possible. The development could consolidate instead of shatter. From this point of view Mythic releasing Imperator isn’t a bad idea, because they aren’t offering their previous game in a new flavor. Instead they are exploring a new genre to deliver something that wouldn’t fit in the previous. The players may appreciate this because it consolidates the choice on a type of interest instead of a direct comparison of the same offer. The opposite of this idea is building sequels. Like EverQuest moving to become EverQuest 2. It’s a natural process of erosion. The mudflation applied to the whole shape of the game.

Honestly I do not believe that this idea will move from its potential status to be effectively actualized. “Instancing” is easier than persistence. It presents less problems to face on every level, it gives more control on the content and its development. It will allow more easily to shape up “disposable worlds”. Considering how the market is shaped and its requests, it’s the way to go.

We will have mmorpgs that do not remember why they are called so.

EDIT- A follow-up can be found here.

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*