Over the past couple of weeks the MMO blogosphere has once again been discussing the ever-pertinent question of "Why fantasy?" in regards to the MMO and its heritage; MUDs and tabletop gaming. The subject has been covered quite well from many different points of view and opinions, none of which are inherently wrong and all of which are worth a read if the subject interests you in any way.
The reasons are especially well covered in a round-table that Damion Schubert posted to Zen of Design earlier this year. Many of these reasons that materialized from the round table appear quite valid, yet I don't see eye-to-eye with these concepts. In my opinion, several of them seem arbitrary and some could be applied in opposition of fantasy. In fact, the more I read on the subject of "Why fantasy?" the more I think, "All the more reason to evolve beyond fantasy."
I'm going to address the well summed-up list posted by Damion Schubert piece by piece, as it lays out the most compelling evidence for why fantasy continues to reign supreme. So if you find yourself lost on what I'm talking about, feel free to refer to the original article in question. Now, we'll take a look into this list and see just how much of it really holds up against an argument for something other than fantasy.
Fantasy is indeed double-coded and while that means everyone is incredibly familiar with fantasy, it also means that everybody has been there and done that a hundred times over. The market is ripe for a well-executed modern or sci-fi MMO to burst onto the scene. It's very apparent that while publishers are all working on their various "safe" fantasy games, there is a void to be filled by some good non-fantasy titles as well. Also, while being double-coded is a great boon for any MMO, I don't see it as being quintessential for a game to see widespread success. Even if you wanted to argue a case for something needing to be double-coded, Star Wars is probably a viable IP again at this point and I really can't think of anyone who isn't at least a little familiar with that world.
It's no secret at this point that I'm something of a fan for any kind of sci-fi or modern MMO. So it goes without saying that while I may be looking forward to Warhammer Online, I would still do a quadruple back-flip for a brand new sci-fi or modern MMO with even a hint of extraordinary quality.
Subject number two is the heroic arc, in where a player starts their fantasy career killing wolves or rats and works his or her way up to massively powerful beings of whatever type your mind can conjure. While fantasy gives us plenty of fodder for this arc, it must be said that I've heard plenty of people say they're honestly tired of this played-out "arc" of ours. I myself have climbed many a mountain of uncountable meager creatures just to get to a level where I start to fight the cool stuff. A better idea would be to find other ways to give players that feeling of heroism bit by bit.
Here's an example: Lets take a post-apocalyptic MMO and spawn the player's newly created avatar on the outskirts of their chosen faction's area. This area is a small closed-off neighborhood where the player is led down and a smaller street that leads into the safe haven of a metropolis. As the player begins to move down this street towards their destination, they come along a group of thugs in the middle of mugging someone, maybe an older lady. She yells the player's name, calling for help and the player gets their first chance to feel as though they're on their way to greater deeds. It's basic yet heroic while at the same time serves as a good jumping point for a series of quests that could involve dealing with this gang for your first few levels. As you move up in the world more opportunities could open up to you, eventually allowing you to take part in bringing down massive corrupt corporations. Who wouldn't want to slam some money-laundering, blackmailing, corrupt CEO heads into the ground after taking down throngs of hired mercenaries or worse? If that isn't enough, there are threats such as mutants or neo-extremists looking to destroy your home and haven. These are just a few raw ideas off the top of my head, so I'm sure designers with more time and skill could produce something much more enthralling.
Another claim is related to the post-apocalyptic setting itself. It states that fantasy is more inviting. Essentially, you start in a safe idyllic village and even while traveling to the most terrifying places all over the world, you can always come back to your peaceful home. It plays on the idea that the hope of the safety of your home is worth fighting for; that it's compelling. The claim is that fantasy allows this while something like a post-apocalyptic world cannot. Well, why exactly can't a post-apocalyptic world have a lush oasis-city that managed to harbor life? A city in which its people have spent several years cultivating and nurturing it into a small, yet evocative shadow of its former glory? Who says you can't start out in a quaint semi-beautiful valley within the safeness of your city walls, only to travel out into the wastes and defeat foes that would threaten the last bastion of mankind? This one seems fairly cut and dry to me; there's nothing saying you can't do this.
One thing that seems a little odd to me was the concept that fantasy is character driven and sci-fi or modern stories aren't. This is an interesting claim, since many of my favorite sci-fi stories are very character driven. Star Wars? Check. Firefly/Serenity? Check. Mad Max? Check! In truth, the fact that we've just got far more fantasy movies, books and games than sci-fi makes it seems as though sci-fi has less content or characters to pull from. In reality sci-fi has just been mined less and therefore still holds many hidden treasures to be unearthed by some great stories. These stories don't have to be books or movies, an MMO is just as likely a candidate. To date there's been one Star Wars game. That's just one game set within a space opera universe full of myths, heroes and great prophecies of coming evils. Hopefully, the second one will fare better. Even if that doesn't happen though, there are other candidates for the first sci-fi hit.
A point I cannot deny is that the tank-healer-mage roles are archetypically fantasy; those roles originated there. Yet that didn't stop Cryptic Studios from adopting them into the first superhero MMO on the market. Blasters, Defenders, Controllers, Scrappers and Tankers were perfectly designed from classic classes into a non-fantasy setting. Cryptic even added more classic fantasy classes with the inclusion of the archetypes from City of Villains. The lesson here is that some sci-fi or modern MMOs can adapt the classic classes easier than others. In those cases where the developer is presented with a challenging IP that demands something more than your standard fantasy class, we can only hope they're able to evolve or create something new and exciting to play.
Resonance is a tricky subject, because it is true that people are far more familiar with fantasy. They find it much more familiar than, say, Ringworld. What I personally believe, however, is that something like Ringworld is going to be more fresh or compelling to people than, "Heroic Guy Fantasy Journey XII". So where fantasy has resonance, sci-fi is modern. It's fresh. Not only is it fresh, but it has the opportunity to be far more compelling than the same old fantasy shtick. Sooner or later, one day or another, the time will come when somebody figures out that magical recipe for sci-fi success. The next question is, "how?" Well, next week I'll be exploring the how.
Reader Comments (9)
Posted: Dec 29th 2007 10:39AM Twinkle Tits said
Hmmm...fallout pic, fallout story but no tag and no mention of fallout ?
Posted: Dec 29th 2007 10:55AM (Unverified) said
That's what I was thinking. Maybe it's in one of the links?
Reply
Posted: Dec 29th 2007 11:11AM Krystalle Voecks said
The image was linked to Fallout's site, but per our image policies, I've gone back and added in proper image credit showing the domain from whence it came. I apologize for the oversight on image credit.
Reply
Posted: Dec 29th 2007 11:00AM Ghen said
Fantasy also solves a normal problem in MMOs.. how to handle death. "Magic!"
Kinda a little harder to do death in post-apocalyptic or sci-fi and near impossible to write the story behind resurrection in WWII.
Kinda a little harder to do death in post-apocalyptic or sci-fi and near impossible to write the story behind resurrection in WWII.
Posted: Dec 29th 2007 11:25AM Krystalle Voecks said
Well, there's always cloning. After all, you couldn't have a good game of Paranoia without clones. ;)
The computer is your friend!
Reply
The computer is your friend!
Posted: Dec 29th 2007 7:12PM (Unverified) said
My apologies on the Fallout error, it was late when I finished this all up.
Magic is a really big crutch for fantasy since it can be an explanation for any sort of in-game strangeness. Figuring out how to explain things without magic is certainly a challenge. A modern or sci-fi MMO with an original setting will probably have the easiest time coming up with explanations for different issues. On the flip side, a game like Star Trek is probably going to struggle a bit with the player death as a mechanic.
I suppose if you wanted to be lazy you could create a world where the science is so advanced it nearly is like magic. Although at that point you're treading a line between fantasy and sci-fi, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Magic is a really big crutch for fantasy since it can be an explanation for any sort of in-game strangeness. Figuring out how to explain things without magic is certainly a challenge. A modern or sci-fi MMO with an original setting will probably have the easiest time coming up with explanations for different issues. On the flip side, a game like Star Trek is probably going to struggle a bit with the player death as a mechanic.
I suppose if you wanted to be lazy you could create a world where the science is so advanced it nearly is like magic. Although at that point you're treading a line between fantasy and sci-fi, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Posted: Jan 1st 2008 1:42AM (Unverified) said
"All the more reason to evolve beyond fantasy."
If I understand correctly, you are saying that one of the main reasons for the domination of the fantasy genre is its familiarity, and that is also the reason to move to something else?
Or are there other answers to the "Why fantasy?" question that you also feel are also justifications for doing something other than fantasy?
I understand that you also mentioned the character-centric aspect of fantasy's heroic arc as being tired, but you went on to say that the character-centric aspect of fantasy could be achieved with a different genre.
As I see the heroic arc being central to the value of fantasy's focus on individuals, I'm getting what I think you meant to be two separate points all muddled together.
That is, altogether it's not really an argument against it so much as an argument against fantasy being necessary to do it... which is fine... but if it's old and busted, then wouldn't the argument against "fantasy for the sake of the focus on individual characters" more reasonably be, "You shouldn't be doing the heroic arc thing again anyway."
I'm not presenting the above as a strawman tactic, but just to explain my confusion. That is, I don't think that's actually what you are saying, but I'm just reading it wrong.
Can you elaborate more on the distinction between heroic-arc and being character-centered?
On a different note: I think it's important to point out that Bartle's "why fantasy?" question was really addressing a more specific genre than "fantasy". He's really speaking specifically of the "swords and sorcery" genre - medieval European knights and wizards-type fantasy.
No fair appealing to Star Wars - it is fantasy. And though that approach to moving beyond fantasy (dressing up the swords-and-sorcery genre in sci-fi drag) worked great for the Star Wars movies, it's been harshly criticized by MMO fans.
Random thought: One of the best things to come of this discussion, I think, would be the identification of the critical elements of the fantasy genre that have lead to it being the predominant genre - so that anyone who does attempt to colonize some new territory will know what they need to replace or take with them.
Another random thought: Once upon a time, almost all the movies made and the vast majority of the big hits were Westerns. The breadth and duration of that genre's dominance on motion pictures absolutely dwarfs the predominance of fantasy in MMOs... Without anyone really feeling any particular need to combat that fact, eventually things changed.
A "Why Westerns?" discussion in which the assumption being challenged is that westerns will forever dominate the motion picture industry would seem pretty silly to us now.
Could be that challenging the current assumption about fantasy turns out to be funny, if the assumption itself winds-up being silly.
If I understand correctly, you are saying that one of the main reasons for the domination of the fantasy genre is its familiarity, and that is also the reason to move to something else?
Or are there other answers to the "Why fantasy?" question that you also feel are also justifications for doing something other than fantasy?
I understand that you also mentioned the character-centric aspect of fantasy's heroic arc as being tired, but you went on to say that the character-centric aspect of fantasy could be achieved with a different genre.
As I see the heroic arc being central to the value of fantasy's focus on individuals, I'm getting what I think you meant to be two separate points all muddled together.
That is, altogether it's not really an argument against it so much as an argument against fantasy being necessary to do it... which is fine... but if it's old and busted, then wouldn't the argument against "fantasy for the sake of the focus on individual characters" more reasonably be, "You shouldn't be doing the heroic arc thing again anyway."
I'm not presenting the above as a strawman tactic, but just to explain my confusion. That is, I don't think that's actually what you are saying, but I'm just reading it wrong.
Can you elaborate more on the distinction between heroic-arc and being character-centered?
On a different note: I think it's important to point out that Bartle's "why fantasy?" question was really addressing a more specific genre than "fantasy". He's really speaking specifically of the "swords and sorcery" genre - medieval European knights and wizards-type fantasy.
No fair appealing to Star Wars - it is fantasy. And though that approach to moving beyond fantasy (dressing up the swords-and-sorcery genre in sci-fi drag) worked great for the Star Wars movies, it's been harshly criticized by MMO fans.
Random thought: One of the best things to come of this discussion, I think, would be the identification of the critical elements of the fantasy genre that have lead to it being the predominant genre - so that anyone who does attempt to colonize some new territory will know what they need to replace or take with them.
Another random thought: Once upon a time, almost all the movies made and the vast majority of the big hits were Westerns. The breadth and duration of that genre's dominance on motion pictures absolutely dwarfs the predominance of fantasy in MMOs... Without anyone really feeling any particular need to combat that fact, eventually things changed.
A "Why Westerns?" discussion in which the assumption being challenged is that westerns will forever dominate the motion picture industry would seem pretty silly to us now.
Could be that challenging the current assumption about fantasy turns out to be funny, if the assumption itself winds-up being silly.
Posted: Jan 1st 2008 6:29AM (Unverified) said
Hey Jeff,
Before I address your inquiries I'd like to start off by saying thanks for the comment! I always love a good discussion.
What I was getting at with the fantasy familiarity is this:
Everyone knows fantasy quite well because it's an old concept in human culture (as opposed to sci-fi). I imagine that in time -- just as was with westerns -- fantasy games will thin down greatly and another genre will become popularized. Maybe "Why fantasy?" will seem silly and instead "Why sci-fi?" will become the new question in ten years.
The heroic-arc is something that is quite essential to the MMO (unless you can figure out a new tactical mechanic for players to progress evenly through a game in solo or team-based settings.) and that's why I said, "A better idea would be to find other ways to give players that feeling of heroism bit by bit." The concept I choose to spotlight was more choice or interactivity for the player in regards to their world and character within that world. Because this mechanic is the bread and butter of any MMO, it really has to be evolved one step at a time. So yes, while what I suggested isn't a huge departure from what fantasy games do now, it would at least give players something somewhat new to experience.
Lets see if I can explain this part without things getting too convoluted. I like to think of the heroic arc as it exists right now as a stairway. Some games have a pretty good progression to that stairway, letting you fight bigger, meaner and generally more awe-inspiring opponents. Instead of just that one stairway, I was suggesting that it would be a good idea to offer the player a few meaningful detours along their climb to the upper echelons. Little branches that can either drop a player down into quests where they're fighting weaker opponents but gaining something from that quest (This actually fills the need for some players who want to occasionally feel like they're that big strong hero who pummels the weak villains troubling innocents.) or a branch that twists quests into moral choices that the player gets to make. Ideally this choice would have some kind of meaningful impact on that player. Tabula Rasa sort of tried that second part, but from what I've seen it really didn't do too much with it. I could be wrong on that, though.
The character-driven side -- to me -- is more about the characters that inhabit the world that the player is within instead of the player's actual character. I suppose the terminology is just a bit confusing more than anything else. My point here is that sci-fi and fantasy both are character-driven as well as idea-driven. Lord of the Rings was about fighting for your home and freedom as much as it was about Gandalf, Frodo and crew. Any fan of Serenity or Star Wars can tell you their absolute favorite characters. It was a claim made during a round-table on the topic that Zen of Design had posted a long while back. It just seemed incredibly incorrect to me.
I don't think it's unfair to point to Star Wars. SWG was highly criticized by fans not for the fact that it was Star Wars but for the way in which Jedi were handled canonically as well as the NGE. Also, the Star Wars movie wasn't a movement beyond fantasy. It was borrowing concepts from fantasy, to be sure. Aside from borrowing from fantasy Star Wars also has a lot of influence from Akira Kurosawa Samurai flicks, westerns (Han Solo anyone?) and of course the dramatic opera. Anyhow, Star Wars is full of life, characters, intrigue, and adventure. It's the perfect IP for a starting point in the evolution beyond pure fantasy.
What I'm trying to say is that all these things a fantasy MMO can do can be done by other genres as well. The harder hurdle to pass is the concept of the "magic pass" fantasy gets to use for the more challenging concepts such as perma-death or explaining why wizards can shoot fire and ice around like it's no big deal.
Also, I fully agree with you that identifying the critical elements that work for fantasy and discussing what to keep and what to drop would be a wonderful thing to put together. In fact it's an idea that is already underway for my next post. :)
Before I address your inquiries I'd like to start off by saying thanks for the comment! I always love a good discussion.
What I was getting at with the fantasy familiarity is this:
Everyone knows fantasy quite well because it's an old concept in human culture (as opposed to sci-fi). I imagine that in time -- just as was with westerns -- fantasy games will thin down greatly and another genre will become popularized. Maybe "Why fantasy?" will seem silly and instead "Why sci-fi?" will become the new question in ten years.
The heroic-arc is something that is quite essential to the MMO (unless you can figure out a new tactical mechanic for players to progress evenly through a game in solo or team-based settings.) and that's why I said, "A better idea would be to find other ways to give players that feeling of heroism bit by bit." The concept I choose to spotlight was more choice or interactivity for the player in regards to their world and character within that world. Because this mechanic is the bread and butter of any MMO, it really has to be evolved one step at a time. So yes, while what I suggested isn't a huge departure from what fantasy games do now, it would at least give players something somewhat new to experience.
Lets see if I can explain this part without things getting too convoluted. I like to think of the heroic arc as it exists right now as a stairway. Some games have a pretty good progression to that stairway, letting you fight bigger, meaner and generally more awe-inspiring opponents. Instead of just that one stairway, I was suggesting that it would be a good idea to offer the player a few meaningful detours along their climb to the upper echelons. Little branches that can either drop a player down into quests where they're fighting weaker opponents but gaining something from that quest (This actually fills the need for some players who want to occasionally feel like they're that big strong hero who pummels the weak villains troubling innocents.) or a branch that twists quests into moral choices that the player gets to make. Ideally this choice would have some kind of meaningful impact on that player. Tabula Rasa sort of tried that second part, but from what I've seen it really didn't do too much with it. I could be wrong on that, though.
The character-driven side -- to me -- is more about the characters that inhabit the world that the player is within instead of the player's actual character. I suppose the terminology is just a bit confusing more than anything else. My point here is that sci-fi and fantasy both are character-driven as well as idea-driven. Lord of the Rings was about fighting for your home and freedom as much as it was about Gandalf, Frodo and crew. Any fan of Serenity or Star Wars can tell you their absolute favorite characters. It was a claim made during a round-table on the topic that Zen of Design had posted a long while back. It just seemed incredibly incorrect to me.
I don't think it's unfair to point to Star Wars. SWG was highly criticized by fans not for the fact that it was Star Wars but for the way in which Jedi were handled canonically as well as the NGE. Also, the Star Wars movie wasn't a movement beyond fantasy. It was borrowing concepts from fantasy, to be sure. Aside from borrowing from fantasy Star Wars also has a lot of influence from Akira Kurosawa Samurai flicks, westerns (Han Solo anyone?) and of course the dramatic opera. Anyhow, Star Wars is full of life, characters, intrigue, and adventure. It's the perfect IP for a starting point in the evolution beyond pure fantasy.
What I'm trying to say is that all these things a fantasy MMO can do can be done by other genres as well. The harder hurdle to pass is the concept of the "magic pass" fantasy gets to use for the more challenging concepts such as perma-death or explaining why wizards can shoot fire and ice around like it's no big deal.
Also, I fully agree with you that identifying the critical elements that work for fantasy and discussing what to keep and what to drop would be a wonderful thing to put together. In fact it's an idea that is already underway for my next post. :)
Posted: Jan 5th 2008 9:55PM (Unverified) said
I don't think it's unfair to point to Star Wars. SWG was highly criticized by fans not for the fact that it was Star Wars [snip!]
Heh. I'm talking about Star Wars as an IP, rather than about SWG (or any SW game) specifically.
What I mean by "no fair" is that SW is fantasy, so using it as an example of a non-fantasy genre is... less than ideal. :)
I'm seeing the potential for a couple different statements:
1) Everything that makes fantasy great can be done with another genre.
2) Everything that makes fantasy great has been done to death, but other things could be done with a different genre.
I find the 2nd more compelling, presonally... I tend to think if you're going to do everything just as you'd do with the fantasy genre, then what's the real point of using any other genre?
I also find the statements to be somewhat at odds.
My feeling is that different genres are better and worse at delivering different things, and so the point of using a different genre would be to deliver something different.
If any genre can do what fantasy can do, then can't fantasy do what any other genre can do, too?
I guess I'm looking for just the opposite: "This is what sci-fi does well, which fantasy does poorly... so even though vice versa with that, it's worthwhile, because that has been done to death."
On a semi-related note: (I'd post a link, but my internet is being slow and stupid at the moment), you should check out David Brin's blog for a somewhat recent post in which he asks, "Is the era of sci-fi over?" He's a sci-fi author (just in case you didn't already know that), speaking of sci-fi in film, but I found it strangely relevant to this discussion, and very interesting.
And un-related: Also in that same post, he asks for market-size estimates on virtual worlds, etc... That's gotta make you curious what he's up to, eh? :)
Heh. I'm talking about Star Wars as an IP, rather than about SWG (or any SW game) specifically.
What I mean by "no fair" is that SW is fantasy, so using it as an example of a non-fantasy genre is... less than ideal. :)
I'm seeing the potential for a couple different statements:
1) Everything that makes fantasy great can be done with another genre.
2) Everything that makes fantasy great has been done to death, but other things could be done with a different genre.
I find the 2nd more compelling, presonally... I tend to think if you're going to do everything just as you'd do with the fantasy genre, then what's the real point of using any other genre?
I also find the statements to be somewhat at odds.
My feeling is that different genres are better and worse at delivering different things, and so the point of using a different genre would be to deliver something different.
If any genre can do what fantasy can do, then can't fantasy do what any other genre can do, too?
I guess I'm looking for just the opposite: "This is what sci-fi does well, which fantasy does poorly... so even though vice versa with that, it's worthwhile, because that has been done to death."
On a semi-related note: (I'd post a link, but my internet is being slow and stupid at the moment), you should check out David Brin's blog for a somewhat recent post in which he asks, "Is the era of sci-fi over?" He's a sci-fi author (just in case you didn't already know that), speaking of sci-fi in film, but I found it strangely relevant to this discussion, and very interesting.
And un-related: Also in that same post, he asks for market-size estimates on virtual worlds, etc... That's gotta make you curious what he's up to, eh? :)







