Azaroth

This post started out as a personal exercise/design intro, and I’m not exactly sure what it ended up being. Stick with me though, it does eventually end up going somewhere. I think.

These days, when you peruse the feature sets of AAA MMOs, you can *almost* understand why they cost so much money to build. They’re feature rich in many very expensive ways. However, they usually tend to spend their battle chest in the direction of their subgenre. Almost exclusively, this is the achievement-based direction. Which makes all kinds of sense of course, since you play to your market. And with big budgets, you pick the biggest markets to play to.

Back in the day, there wasn’t really the extreme segregation of playstyles that you see today. One might say that was a good thing. Obviously many did not, but I’m not so sure that they aren’t somewhat overlooking the benefits of a melting pot. For instance, Ultima Online was not only designed to be a melting pot of all different types of people and playstyles, but it had the advantage of being “first”. It was the first MMO to reach mass appeal (depending on what you consider mass appeal, but I’m not sure this is entirely arguable unless you’re a huge fan of Gemstone IV or Meridian 59, etc). As such, unlike today where everyone can pick and choose through a bevy of online offerings to find the one that fits their specific playstyle almost exactly, everyone was thrust into one magical, diverse world full of different people with differenet playstyles and very different goals. Most people break this down to be as simple as “PK vs. Non-PK”, but that is, of course, a drastic oversimplification. Since that’s the most visible rift, it does get keyed in on.

Which is fine, but it’s also just another reason why it’s up to the developer to engineer a diverse world, if that happens to be the goal. Some would argue that players don’t need to be shown what they like, but should be treated like adults and given the right to choose what they like. That’s fine, I don’t entirely disagree. But that’s also what leads to niche play. World-y games are a niche/subgenre in themselves, and, ultimately, people will choose them based on what they are and what type of experience they provide just like any other MMO niche.

It’s a funny situation that we haven’t already seen more games like UO, but I suppose that developers feel they can include tidbits of playstyles in a mainly Diku package, and that’ll be enough to satisfy everyone. Or maybe the numbers of non-achievers are so small that they don’t need to be taken seriously these days. World of Warcraft, in all of its achiever-centric glory, may actually be the closest we see to a behemoth melting pot for a long time. While they’ve included PvP, crafting, and… little else, these things have also been twisted and contorted into nothing more than another achievement grind by the Blizzard developers. Though their PvP+ servers thrive, which is somewhat surprising to me (through sheer force of numbers, peer pressure, basic player type ratios?). With all of that in mind, I honestly expected WoW to look a lot more like EQ than it actually does. And it does.

But that’s the future. Big budgets will go toward the same type of MMOs that they have been since EQ came out, lesser-funded developers will continue to delve into the niche worlds. The same as always. Some say this isn’t the future, because the popularity of “choice” and niche games is growing - and nobody can compete with WoW. I wonder why not, though. Are the profits they’ve experienced not incentive enough?

As the years pass and WoW becomes more dated, I’m fairly certain someone will roll out another behemoth to raise the bar even higher - or at least take the crown away. Let’s face it, these cries of “we can go no higher! budgets have peaked, subscriptions have peaked, nobody can POSSIBLY dethrone the king!” were heard back when everyone was playing EQ, too. History often repeats itself.

But regardless of my rants in that direction, niches ARE gaining in popularity. Especially very tight niches. Children’s games, puzzle games, purely social games especially. But none of these truly encompasses what MMOs are about, in my eyes. Aren’t they (respectfully) more tastefully labeled and looked at simply as “online games”? Is there a niche for “everyone else” that isn’t interested in either extreme, but a more well rounded experience similar to what they experienced in the late ’90s with Ultima Online (am I just a UO fanboy)?

Yeah, probably. Although I’m going to go out on a limb and presume that you’ve guessed that I’m going to say that by now.

While UO was what it was, and a lot of people enjoyed it and even look back fondly on it, my experiences (including the “classic free shard” scene) have taught me several things about the nostalgia people feel for Ultima Online. First, the good news of course - and that is, these people aren’t operating on full-on, unadulterated nostalgia with little reason behind it. UO really was a unique experience, mostly in the early days of the game. That people pine to repeat that experience actually holds some logic beyond nostalgia. There aren’t any games that provide a sandbox gameplay and a social experience on par.

For instance, if EA/Mythic were to implement a classic server (although I can’t currently speak for the community like I once could, I certainly haven’t been the least bit involved for the last two years), the chances are that it’d attract a wide variety of players (as I’ve said, in what numbers I’m not TOTALLY sure - which is beside the point for now). This wide net effect is much unlike the current, and usual, crop of free servers. They tend to attract, as is the current trend and the inevitability when you provide copious amounts of choices for play, a very niche audience.

For example, many free servers have followed and mimiced IPY. Most of them end up with the very same 300-400 players online, somewhat because there are also 5,000 other free servers of every possible texture and flavour, and people have decided on what it exactly is that they like by now.

But then that 300 turns iinto 200, then 100, then 50, and then the shard either closes or becomes neglected, and the players move on. This all tends to happen within the space of six months, give or take. Beyond being EA’s biggest fear in regard to putting up a classic UO server (and I guarantee you that it’s been observed with some interest), what does this ultimately say?

Ultimately, it says that classic UO never had as many features as people gave it credit for. While it has what it has, and you inevitably get the crafters and socialites on a good classic server (thank God), the fact of the matter is that a LARGE majority of players end up breaking the experience down into a race to macro their skills to the max level (made ever easier by the unaddressed scourge that are 3rd party scripting programs), getting a house, getting resources together, and then participating in a no-holds-barred PvP fest. What other avenues of play there are have been ‘done to death’, and simply didn’t age well with the advent of extreme powergaming.

But in turn, this play style drives off every other type of player. Those being driven away are interested in the setting and the ruleset, but not what it’s being used to create (which is a heaving, twitching, spasming mess).

Once this happens, the shard closes.

Once the shard closes, someone gets the bright idea to put up another one.

Once they do, the remnants of the last shard filter over.

Inevitably, what’s being filtered, through each incarnation and shard closing/opening, is the same thing that’s being actively filtered while the shards are open:

The “other” players.

What’s being filtered IS Ultima Online. Due to many factors, what’s left behind is an increasingly large concentration of purely PvP players. In a free, PvP+, full loot environment… this problem only propagates itself. Before long, the lesser PvPers become the equivalent of the “other players”. They are dominated by the experienced, determined, and, often, the cheaters. Basically, those with the time and desire to become “the best” at this particular flavour of player versus player combat. Before long, through a very natural process, what you’re left with is an online RPG version of Quake. Complete with the auto-headshot programs.

This is, in a way, what was troubling Origin when they implemented the Trammel facet and UO:R. Of course the more visible problem was subscriptions and what would become of them, but the problems are the same thing when you’re charging for your game (which most free shards don’t do - although some find creative ways to make profit).

The UO:Renaissance expansion in 2000 had its heart in the right place. The direction behind it was on target in relation to addressing the perceived problems, I’d personally argue that the design and execution were not. What was being addressed, was, of course, the PvP situation for which Ultima Online was already notorious. The PvP-restricted Trammel facet provided a retreat altogether from the problem. The rock/paper/scissors simplified PvP combat design provided a more equal, less elitist footing for the players who, in the facet left behind, would become the sheep amongst the wolves. Or the skinny guy in prison. Whichever you like. But I don’t believe the designers fully considered the impact of their plans. I’m not sure they thought far enough ahead. The UO:Renaissance expansion was a knee-jerk reaction to a set of problems that sacrificed the future to address the problems of the present.

But why?

Well, the players can’t be at fault. They’re simply playing with the ruleset they’re given (those artificially playing outside of it are always another matter, but that’s -almost- a different topic). And ultimately, the developer assumes (rightfully) that if the design allows for one player to take advantage of another, especially in a forceful manner, a certain amount of the population will simply do so. Although this assumption is somewhat rash when you happen to be applying it in a blatantly reactionary way. It’s imperative to keep sight of what makes your game unique when reacting to the problems of the day. At least to a world like Ultima Online. I’m not sure it’d be as damaging to inflict artificial limitations and sweeping changes to a game like EQ, where artificial limitations are the nature of the beast and everyone is just there to work around them as well as possible to succeed in spending their hard-earned DKP on phat lootz.

However, the “thing” causing the problem is the same thing that allowed UO to grow into such a legend, such a unique experience, and such a unique world: The designer.

Players are just playing with what they’re given. With the increase in choice of game styles, avenues for niche play, those that have been most neglected flock to the game that offers the best experience. It sort of makes me wonder why there isn’t a revolution of crafters pining for better days. But I suppose they make due with the scraps they’re thrown these days, and, of course, a world full of crafters doesn’t work that well. They’re dependant on being somewhat of a minority. Not that a world full of PvPers works well, but a killer can always kill another killer. I’m sure there are some smaller niche worlds where crafters are content crafting for other crafters (ATITD?), but that’d take a unique design. Certainly, a base UO setting wouldn’t work like that.

It does, of course, work as a setting for a big war supplemented by “minigames” of crafting, housing, pve farming (yes purely farming, since I doubt too many people playing UO like that haven’t ever been to the depths of Deceit before) and such. And on unofficial servers that haven’t rigidly directed gameplay in a fashion seen suitable by its developers, it has somewhat.

What needs to be given to people is almost as simple as “more”. The design is that good, that it can be used as a base to build off of ten years later. But we’ve seen where the flaws lie. Especially when you provide massive choice for online gaming, and segregate populations. As a design, classic UO might even succeed today if EA put up a server of that ruleset.

The success would depend on the audience, of course. UO was always what the players made of it, in every aspect. When we were kids, we were entirely happy to pretend we were Marvel (don’t sue?) super heroes, running around playfighting. As soon as we got older, and there were more choices of what to do with our recess time, the population became segregated. Some kids played soccer, some kids played baseball, some kids played tag, and some kids hung out in the far corner of the yard smoking cigarettes because they were too cool for any of that. Friendship circles were formed.

The point is that, now that we’ve gotten a little older and there are many different choices as to what to do with our recess time, it just doesn’t cut it to play with our imaginations anymore. And while UO had a FANTASTIC base to provide us fertile ground for imagination play, there are too many focused experiences out there now for that. People are naturally gravitating toward those focused experiences, and finding friendship circles of likeminded players - creating a more and more unbridgeable gap between the segregated playerbases.

But in the end, I think we all still know that playing with our imagination was fun. There just needs to be some structure too. It needs to be more of a contructive experience. In short, UO is a fantastic base for moving forward, as well. But as it is, as it was, it’s simply not designed in a way that is able to withstand the extreme passage of time and evolution in direction of MMOs and MMO players. This goes beyond the feature set, although the design itself, the general direction, is solid.

So what’s the answer? Well, I think I’ve already basically broadly outlined the answer - but the answer, like the problem, lies within the designer.

That is, however, the other 99% of this post that I’m not willing to share with the world. If you would like to read more, you can subscribe to my private newsletter. It costs a lot of money.