"The Next-Generation Of MMO's" - Yes Or Is It Marketing?

[InkofDeath]

If you're into video games, but more specifically you follow MMo's or play them, then you'll most likely know how MMO's have evolved from 2000 to now. Almost every year MMO's are released there seems to be something the developers have tried to improve on. Whether it's combat, quests, or player interactions, the game genre evolved quickly into the Everquest model. Since then the attempt to copy the EQ model has flourished and been dominant all through 2000 to 2008. In this time there's been plenty of hits and misses. The most striking game to be released is World of Warcraft, which took the skeleton of EQ and increased it's likability and 'core features' to a much larger extent. This attracted tons of new players to the MMO area. Thus continues the legacy that is WoW.

 

 

 

So, why is it when a genre game, that has stayed true and continued to improve itself, receiving so much negative reputation from a large portion of the MMO market? You may say that after players began experiencing MMO's that didn't cater towards how EQ or WoW were developed from, that players started to wonder upon themselves how MMO's could be much more fun, and more creativity and intuitive. Games like UO, Shadowbane, & the promise of DarkFall are what have really pushed this notion of 'Next-Gen MMO's. These games offered PvP-centric core features, and in UO's case an elaborate crafting system, that was useful, and allowed for multi-pvp to be executed.

 

 

 

Not to mention theories & ideas based on how MMO's should have this feature or that feature, like 'real time combat, open-loot, risk/reward features, smarter AI' and a ton of more features that could fill this entire post. All of these new, dynamic features have started to conflict and even in some sense 'fight' with current features like 'classes, levels, dumb AI, safe experiences w/ no risk involved, relatively small map sizes...etc,'.

 

 

 

Now that we're caught up with roughly the current issues surrounding our beloved MMO's, let's take a look at these radical theories being produced to counter-act the 'wrong direction that MMo's are going' (which many of the newly self-appointed opposition think, aggressively).

 

 

 

First and foremost there's this large niche of so called 'Hardcore PvP'ers'. This basically means these are the players that want equal, or very high risks involved in PvP or PvE but offer great rewards. However this 'risk' can't be by chance, but this risk be determined by a combination of player skill & the AI of the game, as well as some 'wishful' features like geographical interaction, though that gets into realism. This also means that the player-versus-player content must be in-depth, useful, have a purpose and feature extensive and elaborate, but not pointless sieging between players, guilds, or factions.

 

 

 

Secondly there's the case on classes and levels. Many players in general believe that classes and levels hinder what the player is able to accomplish, which cripples the potential of any game. Classes restrict players in what they can do, even if you could pick up those hammers and hit someone with them, yet you can't because of how you were 'born'. This is suppose to introduce game balance, but ultimately even when game balance is in play the limitations are daunting. Levels on the other hand produce products like grinding, & 'amount of time invested fights', where you're only able to fight those who have invested the same amount of time into the game, but not those that have received or learned the same amount of player skill in the game. Thus player skill is usually disregarded entirely for pre-determined attacks that will do pre-determined damage based on things you chose like the weapons or armour you wear, but these things come from money or crafting, which must be acquired somehow, through time.

 

 

 

Thirdly there's the Guild and Social Interaction incorporation and friendlessness to social interaction. Basically this means how well the game offers guilds/clans to be able to interact within itself (communication, bonds, friends, and how the guild is supported by the game inside of itself) and how it interacts with outside factors (weight with the game's market, sieges, and reputation). Now there's tons of internal and external features for guilds, but they're not always implemented and when they are, it's not very well done to collaborate with the other features, or other guilds or in sieges.

 

 

 

Hopefully you can now guess why these MMO's I'm about to list are calling themselves 'next-gen MMO's, if not, it's because these 'next-gen MMO's are going to fix the current issues with MMo's, implemented all the features players are talking about, fix the negatives like classes & levels, bring back player skill and not time or pre-determined events, larger continents, gameplay 10x more in-depth and useful, as well as implementing elaborate crafting to make UO look pathetic, while sustaining an in-game economy through resources, crafting, guilds and dozens of factors that all share the same unique, and specific similarity, player-controlled factors. There's much more lesser known features that could be listed, but however important they are to the overall 'greatness' of any game they are, we'll stick with the larger issues for now.

 

 

 

Players & developers are very excited, or at least the majority are (if you don't count the 11 million players that can't switch to a website and find out what's evolving in the MMO market or what they're missing) for these features to be implemented through trial and error and then to see if we're right or wrong, or if we need to find another new direction to take MMO's in. However publishers aren't so keen because trial and error isn't always great for sales. Thus the migration is going to be through small-privately owned companies, or companies in other countries distributing to NA/EU.

 

 

 

So that's enough theory and unsubstantiated discussions. Let's look at some of the MMO's, or in particular three MMO's that count themselves as 'true next-gen mmo's'.

 

 

 

The first is DarkFall. I've been following since 05/06 of it's development process and when I first got to play it I was so happy to find a game so different and unique to WoW-clones. Sure 1/3 of the combat system was sketchy, but it's easily fixed with such a 'modular' skill system that is in place, that in a few months it'll be directional or an improved version of Melee. Regardless this game aimed at three things. The first is to please the PvP centric crowd. Once they fix melee or improve it, then they'll have done that no problem. Archery & Magic are very well done and are near perfect to what high expectations come to. The second is major support for guilds & sieges. In the most objective terms I can think of is that Aventurine has produced the most elaborate and interesting siege warfare based system since sliced bread. If people get addicted to DarkFall it will be because of this feature, that is marvelous. It's historic yet will last for quite some time. They've definitely made the siege equivalent of what EQ made MMO's, just it's better & doesn't have the problems of todays MMO's. The third is something that not just MMO gamers wanted, but pretty much the majority of casual gamers, smarter, more difficult, more believable Artificial Intelligence (AI).

 

 

 

The first time I attacked a mob in DarkFall, I died. Then I continued to die again because, unlike other MMO's, trying to take on 2+ mobs is a death sentence. You're not going to be able to take on 2 mobs, alone 4 or more. The AI knows how to react and it really does feel like someone is playing against you as a mob. It's pretty awesome to experience, actually having to think with every action you do to try and kill the mobs, instead of just watching TV or alt-tabing while your guy tries to kill the 10+ mobs around.

 

 

 

Next up is Mortal Online, that specifically claims it's a next generation MMO:

 

 

 

Mortal Online is a next generation PC MMORPG both in terms of graphics and gameplay.

 

 

 

Promising or full of themselves, who knows. Yet they still feature the same concepts that not just Darkfall offer, but also promises to fix the features this 'niche' of gamers are wanting. Here's the site and read for yourselves and compare to these three games:

 

http://www.mortalonline.com/

 

 

 

Next up is Earthrise. A futuristic-based MMO. Still has the same concepts, but takes a huge different approach by the theme being futuristic not fantasy-medieval. Not to mention that the science in this futuristic game is all the theories that are present in todays science. So there's little true Sci-Fi from the imagination. It'll be interesting to see how this MMO presents itself and how it channels the promises to fix the 'problems' with it being such a futuristic, 'Sci-Fi' based MMO.

 

Site: http://www.play-earthrise.com/

 

 

 

After you've read up on these three MMO's you'll be in on the past, present & future solutions, problems and promises to be made or broken. It's time to form an answer and think yes or no or maybe on whether these coming MMO's are really going to be the 'next-gen' MMO's and set a trend we'll follow into the future, or if these games are just a phase created by players begging for something different than WoW.

 

 

 

I think if these games are relatively successful within the MMO community then we'll see more MMO's that begin to experiment with the 'normal' features in MMO's and then create some new takes on features or invent new features originally. To me, experimentation is far better than just sticking to one type of 'model' of an MMO for 10 years before switching over to a new trend of MMO's.

 

 

 

So please post your thoughts & considerations, and on more MMO's that you think might be next-gen!

[Nadril]

Good to see you make such a post. Sadly I don't think there are that many people on these forums that like MMORPGs like we do. :P

 

 

 

Either way I can agree with you on the Next-Gen idea. I would personally put down Jumpgate Evolution as a next gen game as well.

 

 

 

 

 

I think where I disagree with you is that, for me, I like a good balance between realism and fun. What I mean by this is I always enjoyed games, such as Lineage II, where with me and another player we could take on obscene amounts of monsters and win with good skill. Diablo II is another example in which, really, it's just so absurd with the number of on screen enemies at once.

 

 

 

I'm all for smarter AI, certainly. However I don't want the AI to be annoying. Having a monster run around like an idiot just seems strange. For me I think the best way is to attribute certain behavioral effects to various types of NPCs. Perhaps a goblin will be the type of monster that will scamper around a lot. However if you fight a big [wagon] Ogre I don't think it is the kind of monster that would run away and, in fact, I think it's something that would very much chase after you. I also think that different types of monsters should be more or less aggressive depending on what they are. Of course that's pretty standard MMO flare (aggressive and non aggressive mobs) but I think it could be taken further.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For PvP I do want a full loot kind of scenario out there. However I have to say that, in PvP games, I'm a bit odd. I often times try to stay with small "hunting parties" with 2-5 players. While I enjoy full sieges and think it should be a staple feature I also really love small scale PvP. I love the thrill of trying to out smart a few adversaries, or even better the thrill of being out numbered (like so many times on Lineage II where me and my roomate would take people on 2v4/5).

 

 

 

 

 

As far as "skill based" and classes go, I'm a bit mixed. I like customization for characters, I find it incredibly important. However I also don't think that developers need to necesarily get rid of the notion of a "class" but merely lessen it up a bit. One of my favorite systems was a mix of Class and Skill in the MMO Anarchy Online. What Anarchy Online did was this:

 

 

 

• 
   
  You chose a class when you started the game. This dicated what kind of special skills you would get and some of your base stats. It also dictated a bit on what your favorable skills would be.
   
   
   
  When you leveled up in Anarchy Online you got a certain number of points to improve your skills. Think of this almost like Diablo/Diablo II but a lot lot more complex. There were something like 90-100+ skills in the game. They would range from things such as Engineering, various weapon skills, various "tech" skills (magic) and crafting skills, among other things such as base stats.
   
   
   
  In AO all of the gear in the game (for the most part) was based off of how good your stats were, and not what your level was. So in a fashion almost close to the way Runescape handled it (yes I'm mentioning that game) you could really focus a lot of your stats in on one weapon skill and be able to have a powerful weapon at a lower level, but be gimped in other ways. Even better was that there was no respecs in the game.
   
   
   
   
   
  The best part of this was that gear made a difference in AO, due to it primarily being a PvE game with some PvP. Some of my fondest memories in the game was dealing with items they called implants. Basically Implants were stat boosts you could give yourself, that also took a certain amount of stats to wear. With Anarchy Online's system a player could keep onto an item no matter how much lower their stats got. What this meant is that a player could buff up their stats, put on a high requirement item and then take certain implants on and keep it.
   
   
   
  This lead to a huge (and very skill based, haha. One of the few games where gear was crazy skill based for the best gear) thing where players would "juggle" stats. They would put on an item that would give + weapon skill and + str, and then they would put on the weapon that would require that, and then that would allow them to put on a better implant in a few areas which would allow them to put on some stat armor... and well you get the idea. It honestly was the most fun I've ever had, trying to figure out how the hell I could get 3 more stats to put on this awesome weapon.
   
  

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways enough about AO though. The one thing I do want from a lot of these new MMORPGs is some sort of unique skills. I don't want to have to just swing a weapon, but I want to be able to pull off various techniques. Even if they were done in a realistic fashion (such as the case for Mortal Online) I think that it would improve the PvP greatly. Just make it so that at certain skill levels new kind of attacks open up for you. You could then even mess around with the ideas of mixing two different kind of skill sets together. For example, what if a character had raised their magic and their melee up as primary skills? Well perhaps they could cast a fire spell on their weapon and, bam!, fire axe. It wouldn't even need to be permanent but it could be a temporary move. Balance would have to be done however to insure that not everyone went for the same "build".

 

 

 

 

 

That's all I can really think of. I really am hoping that 2009 turns out to be that year personally. I know that for the past few years it's been disapointment after disappointment. First, 2007 was supposed to be awesome. Then Vanguard sucked (2007 or 2008 I forget) and AoC was pushed back. Then 2008 came and Age of Conan was a huge disappointment and while Warhammer Online is a decent game, and will certainly get better with time, it just wasn't as big of a force as it should have been. Sadly for 2009 all we have to show for it so far is darkfall. :(

[ThurinEthir]

As one of the biggest F2P MMORPG players on here, I suppose I'd say they've come pretty far. Going back to 2000, games like RuneScape were the norm.

 

Though just about every F2P MMO has been a grind, the gameplay has progressed a bit. I don't think there's a RTC F2P MMORPG yet, but I'm sure in a few years at least one will pop up. Graphics really have improved. (Just look at RSC. Then look at any remotely popular game now, minus RuneScape. Notice a difference?)

 

Most importantly, the fact that skills, other than combat, have appeared, like Nadril said, in Anarchy Online, has been great. That, to be honest, is what developers should start looking at. Yes, I'd imagine real-time combat to be fun. Yes, good AI is needed. But it gets ridiculously boring when all you do is kill monster, after monster, after monster, mixing in a few players now and then.

 

I read a book this summer called Epic, and if anyone could actually make a game like that, that would be well...Epic. :P

 

Oh, and Nadril - The thing you said about using magic to cast fire unto a weapon? You can do that in Silkroad Online. Pretty lousy game otherwise (Despite me having praised it so much in the past), but I suppose that was one of the better features. Secondary classes can add so much more strategy.

[InkofDeath]

Good to see you make such a post. Sadly I don't think there are that many people on these forums that like MMORPGs like we do. :P

 

Yea, I know, I don't know what's wrong with these people either. They don't know what they're missing, constantly getting disappointing, overly hyped games that beg for subscribers when the launch is crippled for almost a week or how features in a game that we've been waiting for, for a few months/years were just vague, or misinterpreted descriptions! You know, I think I may have just described 05, 06, 07 and 08! Lol.

 

 

 

Either way I can agree with you on the Next-Gen idea. I would personally put down Jumpgate Evolution as a next gen game as well.

 

Is Jumpgate an MMO, or a glorified Shooter? Like roaming around in space is great and all, but if all you're doing is aiming to kill things, with crafting to better your ship/whatever then isn't that just like mods? I don't know, I'm skeptical, but I think it's more of a MMOFPS, not an MMORPG. Then again if you meant 'next gen game' without the MMO or genre indicated at all, then yea, I agree, it is a next-gen game because of the concepts it's wanting to employ.

 

 

 

I like a good balance between realism and fun. What I mean by this is I always enjoyed games, such as Lineage II, where with me and another player we could take on obscene amounts of monsters and win with good skill. Diablo II is another example in which, really, it's just so absurd with the number of on screen enemies at once.

 

I think I put more emphasis on realism than the majority of MMO'ers do. Like I want hitboxes to be exact, not aided. I want 'recoil' to be real. I want knockback from a club, or spell to be realistic compared to the type of spell or the strength of the hit or the size of the club. I don't want things to be absurd, or it just pisses me off with the game. Then again how can you call yourself a gamer if you ignore a fabulously fun game because of the unrealistic qualities? This is why I'm kind of annoyed when in MMO's people can take on 4 or 5 mobs at once, and just shake it off like nothing. When I saw that WoW video of this mage guy totally dominating a dungeon with over 100+ mobs and not dying, I was kind of glad I never got into WoW. =P

 

 

 

I get what you're saying though and it goes for me to, but to a lesser extent. I need the realism in the game, as well as logic. If you have four mobs on you, chances are in reality they'd distract and then get you from behind. But because it's a game some things are understandable or the game would be entirely unplayable. Then again this gets into AI.

 

 

 

Having a monster run around like an idiot just seems strange.

 

In DF, they weren't running around like idiots to avoid the blows, they were running towards other nearby mobs to attract them to attack you. Majority of the time it worked and you'd start getting hit by arrows. It was annoying, but it was believable which made it 'awesome' and 'revolutionary' that they would interact in such a manner. It was showing the kind of realism I enjoy where things do try to kill you and not just attack you. They put strategy into killing you like how a human would. Since the mobs are usually spawned statically and never go anywhere too far, it shouldn't be that hard to program an AI that can use it's geographical position to advantage against others players. Though this does happen quite a bit in DF, but not enough. The higher level mobs started to use cliffs, trees and other objects to block arrows/magic, or to hide & then shoot from while you were running towards it or keeping your distance.

 

 

 

For me I think the best way is to attribute certain behavioral effects to various types of NPCs. but I think it could be taken further.

 

AI is just such a complex field though. Behavior, strategies, reactions, & hundreds of factors should be coming into play for each type of mob for sure, but honestly the years to develop AI is hard and complex. If you just base something off of behaviors you're leaving out hundreds of other core factors that 'should' come into effect, with realism on or off. For example take your thoughts on how behavior should be taken into account, then develop it to a large degree of complexity. Multiply that by say 200. Then try to create thousands of entirely different and unique scenarios with 1on1 factors or multiple factors combining to form a larger 'choice'. If you base AI off of only one core factor it'll only max out at some point in development and it won't be able to be improved on without introducing another factor or another ten more factors. But yea, this is why DarkFall's AI is entirely awesome and probably won't be matched or topped again for quite awhile. It's probably in the top 20 best AI ever created in the world.

 

 

 

 

 

For PvP I do want a full loot kind of scenario out there. However I have to say that, in PvP games, I'm a bit odd. I often times try to stay with small "hunting parties" with 2-5 players. While I enjoy full sieges and think it should be a staple feature I also really love small scale PvP. I love the thrill of trying to out smart a few adversaries, or even better the thrill of being out numbered (like so many times on Lineage II where me and my roomate would take people on 2v4/5).

 

MMo's Should Support:

 

 

 

- 1 vs 1 PvP

 

- Small-Scale PvP (teams/friends)

 

- Large-scale PvP (sieges, GvG)

 

- Unique PvP (Land, Water, Air fights, DF has Naval)

 

- Dynamic PvP; Based on Skill or other factors that are controlled through the player and not time or through investments; It's fine if gear is a determining factor just so long as there's skill involved and it accounts for 80% of it, or else PvP gets boring in 1vs1 and only begins to be amusing at 5vs5s or higher.

 

- Fair penalty system; In order to keep a game successful there needs to be a penalty system in PvP, but from this penalty system proper and equal rewards for the risk/penalties need to be implemented: Too many games give harsh penalties, but hardly any benefits to PvP'ers. Why not boost our stats and lower some others, stop us from using banks/stores but increase the kinds of drops we get or add drops to the loot, or something that's worth the penalty to keep PvP useufl without the penalty system killing pvp.

 

- PvP needs to have a useful purpose in the game, not just something that's there or by itself. It needs to contribute to the main part of the game and be integrated heavily or just keep it out of the game.

 

 

 

As far as "skill based" and classes go, I'm a bit mixed. I like customization for characters, I find it incredibly important. However I also don't think that developers need to necesarily get rid of the notion of a "class" but merely lessen it up a bit. One of my favorite systems was a mix of Class and Skill in the MMO Anarchy Online. What Anarchy Online did was this:

 

Majority hate classes because they get limited in the type of weapons they can use, or mounts they can get, or quests they can do, and not being able to experience every aspect of the game. Like because I'm a High Mage Lord I can't learn to use a sword properly enough to be useful with it? Or I can't do this quest because I'm a 'High Lord' thus can't do petty quests? I just like the dynamics of shaping the things I will not be able to do or will be able to do. It's fine if I make those choices, but don't let them be made for me. This is what the EQ model does the opposite of, limits and restricts, then laughs in your face for it.

 

 

 

I think classes in general need to be revamped and rethought of completely, and become optional choices in the game that will have equal worthwhile positive and negative affects on your gameplay, but by choice, and won't 'specifically' interfere with the main storyline anymore than game logic would go. Classes & skills can work, but Classes & levels no. Then again levels & skills are similar, just there seems to always be more skills than levels because skills are much more specific in what they do. Like walking is going to increase your walk speed, slashing increases your slashes, but in levels you just have a general level that does all of these 'four' things, or these 'two' things but skills are much more specific and individual. Which is good, creating so many skills that it's down to the basics and can't be broken down anymore is the best for character customization.

 

 

 

Anyways enough about AO though. The one thing I do want from a lot of these new MMORPGs is some sort of unique skills. I don't want to have to just swing a weapon, but I want to be able to pull off various techniques. Even if they were done in a realistic fashion (such as the case for Mortal Online) I think that it would improve the PvP greatly. Just make it so that at certain skill levels new kind of attacks open up for you. You could then even mess around with the ideas of mixing two different kind of skill sets together. For example, what if a character had raised their magic and their melee up as primary skills? Well perhaps they could cast a fire spell on their weapon and, bam!, fire axe. It wouldn't even need to be permanent but it could be a temporary move. Balance would have to be done however to insure that not everyone went for the same "build".

 

I think you just described Age of Conan but in the sense that AoC was on the right path to such the methods you described. The directional swings & the combo system for the combat was bloody genius and well implemented. Put AoC's combat system into DarkFall's melee system and DF would be a mindblower. Tweak Archery to be more diverse but still the same concept of aim & point but with more skills & more types of skills like 'long range shooting', 'short range shooting', 'downward shooting', 'armoured shooting'...etc, and magic I have no idea because I really don't think we've seen a decent way for magic to be used.

 

 

 

Yourl ast few sentences described spellweaving from AoC but in babyform. =P

 

 

 

Tons of players want such capabilities though.

 

 

 

Sadly for 2009 all we have to show for it so far is darkfall. :(

 

Compare DarkFall to all other MMO's and it'll be a tight finish between UO & DF (ok DF may be a few metres behind), with all other MMO's lagging far behind, with EVE infront & AO on her heels. I don't regret saying that DarkFall is revolutionary, because it is. It introduces a ton of new concepts and improves on old classical features. It implements the things players want, in it's own unique way. Now some game company is going to take the model of DF, and put in features on the concepts and make a totally awesome game, or Aventurine continues to be a faithful and supportive company and actually shapes it's MMO to the standards we expect and it becomes a kickass game. There's still potential in DarkFall and I think 2009 will be a heavenly year for the game, tons of fixes and such, so don't count it as fail yet. It's a pretty darn good start to 2009 with such a rich game being released, even if launch has been a flop. I might sound like a fanboy defending my crackers but when it starts to work again, you should try it out from a friend or something. It's worth the experience, even if you play it for a month and come back in a few months. Also, dealing with Aventurine in the beat was the most amazing company support, & communication to the player I've ever seen. We asked for something to be altered, and it happened the next day. It didn't work out, it was removed. Fixes & improvements happened extremely fast for the two months. So I'm not going to be surprised if I'm buying the game in April/May.

 

 

 

 

 

@Penguin, I've played a ton of F2P MMo's, majority being Asian/Korean based MMO's. Like the grind, yes? =P

 

 

 

Though I don't see F2P MMO's evolving anytime soon.

[ThurinEthir]

 

@Penguin, I've played a ton of F2P MMo's, majority being Asian/Korean based MMO's. Like the grind, yes? =P

 

 

 

Though I don't see F2P MMO's evolving anytime soon.

 

Unfortunately, yeah. But I don't see many P2P MMORPGs with some of the things I mentioned either.

 

And I'm Asian, I can handle the grind. :

[InkofDeath]

And I'm Asian, I can handle the grind. :

 

Lol, I've played Rappelz (one of the larger asian/korean games), spent like 500 hours into that game killing Angels and then deleveling from 60 to 50 for an Angel card. Finally got one after about a month of grinding, then it failed.

 

 

 

Then I quit the darn game. Lol. Definitely a game that could use some modernization from 2005. :(

 

 

 

Just can't believe such a game has a strong player base in North America though.

[Nero]

MMOs piss me off. Way too much grinding.

[ember3579]

MMOs piss me off. Way too much grinding.

 

 

 

No, WoW based MMOs piss you off. There ARE ways to make an MMO not a huge grindfest. It's just that corporations make more money from things that force you to waste time on them.