Why do you play MMORPGs?

[Klown]

im building a txt/browser mmo based on the standard midevil/fantasy concept. what do you guys most enjoy about these types of games: leveling, quests, inventing, trading/selling, pvp or competing in a ladder style where you can be the top of the list with your lvl/xp on your char vs. everyone else.? im asking because ive got so many ideas i want to be able to concentrate some effort on the popular areas first. to get the basic game design up and running. any ideas / input is always appreciated.

-klown

[Ravinos]

I could care less about xp and leveling. I mainly play them for the social interaction and pwning noobs in pvp.

[Jackolantern]

I could care less about xp and leveling. I mainly play them for the social interaction and pwning noobs in pvp.

It sounds like you would like to play a sandbox-style game where you can go anywhere right from the start of the game. PvP can be more interesting in sandbox games, too, since players can have such radically different builds.

[PaxBritannia]

I'm surprised no one said this, but Nick Yee has conducted one of the most extensive research projects into MMORPG specific motivations amongst other statistics.

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/

I urge everyone to at least take a glimpse at the graphs.

Here is the page about player motivations: http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archive ... php?page=1

pax.

[Callan S.]

I'll be dreadful and air this hypothesis - have a look at torn city pbbg. I'd say interesting content isn't necessary - only that A: You can see that there are other players B: There are alot of other players and C: You can accumlate numbers, which other players can see.

That's it. You could just have code that just lets you increment a number once every two seconds. If your just interested in lots of players, then the only other thing you need is the capacity for players to see the other players.

[Jackolantern]

I'll be dreadful and air this hypothesis - have a look at torn city pbbg. I'd say interesting content isn't necessary - only that A: You can see that there are other players B: There are alot of other players and C: You can accumlate numbers, which other players can see.

That's it. You could just have code that just lets you increment a number once every two seconds. If your just interested in lots of players, then the only other thing you need is the capacity for players to see the other players.

I actually have to agree for the most part. Honestly, I think most people here on these forums are what I consider "virtual world connoisseurs", who have likely been playing them for years, likely have extensive table-top or board gaming experience before that, likely wrote choose-your-own-adventure games before that when we were kids, etc. Basically, we are game designers.

A good analogy I think is the film business. Look at what the most popular movies of the year are: Spider Man sequels, Transformer sequels, et al. But then look at what films are most popular with film makers: small, boutique, art-house films that most people have never even heard of. Basically, once you know the medium so deeply that you work on designing and developing it, you will typically demand more than the common consumer.

I can only assume this holds true based on where the largest player populations are. WoW has some redeeming qualities, but largely it is just another static, accumulate numbers game. But you really see this in the extremely popular free-to-play games. As Callen said, you can really see this distilled down in "games" such as Torn City, which have over a million players with the most simplistic gameplay imaginable. Or Farmville, which has millions upon millions of players for a simple number-accumulation game thinly hid behind a farming theme.

Your average player just wants something to "master" and then show-off, even if "mastering" the game requires little more than logging in for longer than the majority of other players log in. Compelling content really only seems required these days from pay-to-play games these days (which there are not many of anymore), since most mega-popular F2P games merely have players trying to do the same 1 - 3 tasks over and over again faster than other players.

[Ravinos]

I agree with Jack. Showing off is the number one reason people continue playing persistent games. While I could care less about showing off my "big numbers" and making sure they stay bigger than yours, I'm just out to have fun. The thing that keeps me playing these games is feeling that the world is alive and I'm a part of it. I played ultima online for 8 years because of it. Plus my Nox Mage ate people alive.

[Jackolantern]

Funny thing is, if a game just like UO was launched today by EA and attempted to be sold to the mainstream MMO market, I think it would fail miserably. It is just too far removed from what most MMO players expect today, which is simplistic gameplay, simple and clear accumulation-based mechanics, and linear progression.

[Ravinos]

Exactly Jack. Players these days need to be spoon fed everything thanks to WoW. Mortal Online and Darkfall both came out similar to old school UO and both are doing pretty shitty. Mostly due to being produced by first time companies and using sub par everything. If EA finally decided to do release UO 2 I think it might gain a foot hold. Regular UO still has about 60k active subscribers. Which is more than Mortal Online and Darkfall has combined.

On a side not....I'd still be playing Star Wars Galaxies if Sony didn't destroy the game. I loved the old skill system.

[Callan S.]

The idea of 'failing' in these often confuses me - if they make more money than they spend, it's a profit, right? It's like if you don't make 10x what it cost to run it, it's a 'failure' - when your local milk bar probably sells bread at a mere double the cost they bought them at and that's regular business.

Come out at a profit and make a game that's as honest to your vision as you can in doing so - that seems a winning outcome to me. Perhaps I'm not capitalist enough?