| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (12)

Posted: Aug 31st 2009 7:24PM Minofan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't want to belittle dynamic social content MMOs - as they certainly do have their devout core of enthusiasts - but there is no-way no-how any evidence that they are the wave of the future.

Until there is a BIG success story for this kind of development, there won't even be any clear indicator that there can be a big success story of this kind - any more so than with pure-PvP MMOs or other 'ideals' that have been with the genre since its conception.

Posted: Aug 31st 2009 9:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I dunno. If I were a person with money, and a developer came to pitch a "game that writes itself" (which is only slight hyperbole), I'd might want to invest. It'd imply less payroll, or at least one that's funding a staff better dedicated to game maintenance.
Reply

Posted: Aug 31st 2009 9:07PM mysecretid said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
While I do appreciate the article, C.S., I fear there's one aspect of EVE's "social dynamism" which was overlooked to some degree:

While it is definitely noteworthy that EVE's playerbase spontaneously generates story content and gameplay opportunities to some degree, it's also important to note that not all of these results are actually fun to play.

Sure, if you're already an EVE fan, and you understand the game's hard-edged nature, then getting ganked repeatedly or otherwise being treated roughly on a moments' notice is all part of the game, and the evolving gameplay.

The problem remains, though, that EVE is a very specific flavor of game, and not everyone who plays online games (specifically people who play to relax, or to distract themselves from stress) will appreciate the visceral chaos that is EVE.

For them, the reward of a "socially alive" gamespace comes at too high a price in "fun factor".

Even me, I know what EVE is, and how it plays. I've been in three separate times, for extended periods. It's great at what it does -- but I'll never go back. In the end, it's not fun enough. Realistic? Yes. Thrilling? Often. But its realism is a double-edge sword.

If I want ever-shifting chaos and potential brutality, I can go outside my front door, I don't need to pay $15 a month for that sense of "social evolution and consequential challenge".

Again, not dogging on you, your article, or EVE Online -- only saying that the kind of "social verisimilitude" EVE brings is a double-edged sword, and may not harmonize with a large section of gamers' notions of "what is fun?"

On the bright-side, your mention of the Faces of Mankind MMORPG made me put my name in for the beta. It looks like Anarchy Online 2.0 in certain respects, which can't be a bad thing.

So, yes, I think there is a draw to "socially vibrant" gaming -- but finding a balance between people's hopes for the fun of that sort of gaming, and the internet truth that most people online are dicks, when they're not forced to be otherwise, will be the grail quest tied to this particular issue.

Posted: Aug 31st 2009 11:08PM cray said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I've always felt MMOs should strive to be more social-oriented. I like the idea that a particular role a player has can shape the game itself. I think if there was more focus on this aspect, there would be less selfish gameplay, because right now selfish gameplay has little to no consequences in games like WoW.

I think a lot of MMOs confuse faction play with social gaming. The problem however is that usually faction game play consequences aren't enough, and individual game play within a faction goes on with hardly any effect on the game itself.

Posted: Aug 31st 2009 11:47PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ah, FoM. I miss standing in line with the FDC when the MotB overwhelmed the LED (every night). And they still harassed us when we were off-duty; bunch of glorified rent-a-cops!

Posted: Sep 1st 2009 3:28AM Dblade said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Someone needs to make a big-budget, high concept game that enables this just so that we all see how hard it fails and it never gets spoken of again.

I'm seriously getting tired of the whole UO/EVE/social game as savior of MMO games. History really hasn't shown it.

Posted: Sep 1st 2009 6:52AM Averice said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't really see why you make Eve out to sound so incredible. Anyone can get screwed over in any game from somebody they thought was their friend. This isn't some amazing Eve phenomenon.

It used to happen all the time in WoW, until the "society" got smart and stopped letting people ninja loot or spy cross faction of infiltrate their guild. It sounds more like Eve players just don't have a set of standards on who they should trust because they haven't evolved enough. Even in WoW there were multiple "societies" and ways to combat different underhandedness. Each server had their own methods and rules.

As the expansions came to WoW these mind sets started to disappear, because escape was so easy... kind of like it is in Eve... lol hey look, you can warp drive! Warp drive is like a flying mount in WoW, it lets you completely negate world PvP if you want to.

WoW isn't as social as it once was though. Blizzard has slowly gutted that from their system. Faction change, race change, death of world PvP, group capitol cities, there's no real need for angst across faction anymore because you don't feel like you belong to a faction. Vanilla WoW was the MMO scene for social strife, collection, and warfare, no one else came close to that feeling, and that's part of how WoW got so popular in the first place.

The problem with getting into Eve, in my eyes, is that you're Not part of something. You're only a part of something if you want to be. WoW gave you no choice, Eve gives you this choice. If you don't feel a part of something, if you don't feel a social connection, then you don't feel like playing the MMO, because as you said, it's not much better than a single player game then.

Successful MMO's, in my eyes, make you feel a part of something, not giving you a choice in if you hate those guys or not. Like Aion is doing. Like WoW used to. Like Eve never has.

Posted: Sep 1st 2009 10:28AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Avarice

That is completely a matter of opinion regarding being forced to feel a part of something.

Let's take Ultima Online, our first true MMO of the genre. The game was so successful that it is *still* online to this day. I haven't played it in about 7 years, but it's still running strong with new expansions. It gave the same choices as Eve: be social, or not, that's your choice.

To say that being forced to be social is completely rediculous. EverQuest attempted that strategy, and it was wildly successful, but Ultima Online and games of its sort were still extremely successful models. Eve itself is a successful model.

Not everyone is a social monger. Some of us like to interact with our fellow man simply on a transaction based relationship. Eve facilitates that behaviour, but allows you to access the social function anytime you like. A successful MMO doesn't have to be what you think it ought to be, simply look at the numbers, the money. You don't have to play it, and we don't want you to with that attitude.

Not everything must have community, and not everything must be social. Simply put, you're forcing your values onto me by saying that only successful MMOs have these elements that you have enumerated.

Also, are you saying that I am flawed as a human being because what you think is the best model isn't my idea of the best model? That is true WoW mentality there, especially the die-hard fans. Complete devotion and commitment to the guild, and the motherland. Operating in a hive-like fasion. If that's your idea of fun, that's fine, but I'm not going to claim that your model is unsuccessful.

@Author

Good article by the way. I agree with the douchebaggery part especially.

Posted: Sep 1st 2009 12:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Games like Neverwinter Nights still thrive on player run servers. While the online populations of player run servers like CoPaP are no more than 300 people, they are a dedicated group with plenty of online drama.

Second Life has no other purpose except virtual sex and online interactions.
Read the article on "Mouse World" for an entertaining look at the building of a virtual disney land in SL:
http://www.metaversemessenger.com/pdf/2008/10/MM20081021.pdf

Star Wars Galaxies used to have great player interaction with player run cities until SOE destroyed it, trying to make it more like WoW. SOE also dabbled with player created items and quest (with npcs that a player could set up to say certain things) but griefers quickly made SOE backpeddle.

I think the next big game isn't going to be a WoW ripoff - but something that allows for player created content and intergrates social media (can play from your iphone).

Posted: Sep 1st 2009 10:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
FoM is a great game and has always been my favourite mmo in the 3-4 years around, this is due I believe to the heavy social elements of the game.

Posted: Sep 1st 2009 6:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
As an EvE player I really want you all at Massively to talk more about it , just wanted to toss that out there, good article.

Posted: Sep 2nd 2009 12:35AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Good article, but have you considered A Tale in the Desert as an example of socially enabled, emergent gameplay? I've never played it but the concept has always fascinated me: a persistent world with a finite length that then restarts; a heavy emphasis on crafting and no combat to speak of; a deep political system and the opportunity for players to assume direct control over aspects of the game world. Seems like a nice foil to EVE, at least for those tired of hearing about internet spaceships.

Featured Stories

Betawatch: May 19 - 25, 2012

Posted on May 25th 2012 8:00PM

Coming soon
Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW