There's No “Me” or “I” in MMORPG
(But There Is An OMG…)
By Medeor

At lunch today, my co-workers and I started talking about music.  Since I’m the old-timer here (and apparently the only one with taste) they laughed hysterically when I brought up my collection of Milli-Vanilli CDs. What, why are you laughing?  They were a great band!  Anyway, it got me thinking about how art imitates life and how my love of great music is similar to the way I think about my games (I still think Milli was the brilliance and Vanilli was just there for show).  So apparently just like my life in an MMO, in the music world, I'm a total noob.  Wait, what I meant to say, was that just like my music collection, my taste in games and how I like to play those games changes both day-to-day and over time.  My wife thanks the fact that I outgrew my Milli Vanilli phase.

Unlike the mature music industry (is Half a Dollar considered mature...err...Fifty Cent?), MMOs are in the phase of the industry lifecycle where technology has caught up with the ideas and now the developers have to take chances and gamble with their worlds.  The chances are being taken and they can make some major or minute differences that jump out at you.  As a matter of fact, we are getting spoiled by the number of choices.  There used to be, oh, let’s say about two to choose from (please don’t fire hate mail about all of the games I didn't play/don’t know about or just plain ignored, I bruise easy).  Now the gamer has choices within each genre, along with those games that bend or break genres.   The way games are starting to differentiate is where and how you play together: the Massive part and the Multiplayer part.  My music collection has done the same: I used to be able to have one or two make-me-sad bands like the Cure or Joy Division, now there are multiple versions of make-me-sad types of music.  There is make-me-sad with a side order of depressed, and make-me-sad with a scoop of levity.  Yet I digress, the point is that game developers have to make much tougher choices to set themselves apart.  We see this very specifically in the latest generation of games: DDO, Auto Assault and the upcoming Vanguard: Saga of Heroes.  Games can be massive or micro, and can recommend or require you to group.  I contend that the decision of the first part is less an issue than the decision of the second part.  I feel that both small and large land-scale games can be fun.  However, the decision to require people to group is so fundamental that people (including myself) will specifically choose to play or not play a game if it requires grouping.

Case in point is Dungeons and Dragons Online (DDO).  DDO decided to be micro, not massive.  There is one city where all the action takes place; however, hundreds of hours of time instancing are available from that launching pad.  In contrast, Auto Assault and Vanguard are going with the massive idea, with little to no loading as one traverses an expanse larger than most other games combined.  While I enjoy the lack of load times, sometimes that’s the only time I go potty, so these massive games may require some additional plumbing be installed at my house.   Conversation “Honey, can I install a urinal under the desk?”  I will let you figure out how the rest of that discussion goes.

Your Own Private Idaho
The other way games can make themselves bigger, or give players a specific experience, is to incorporate instances, or unique areas.  Most games, to date, have used instances sparingly and for mega-boss locations, but now they are a differentiator.  Guild Wars fired the first shot using massive instanced areas, saying “Everything outside of these walls is your own private Idaho.”  So everything outside of the cities is instanced.  It's a little difficult to interact with a lot of other people when you are in an instance by yourself.  Other games continue to walk the line of having instances.  EverQuest II (EQ2) and World of Warcraft (WoW) both incorporate instances for group and raid content. You can get to end game without going into an instance (but you would miss out on a lot of the game).  Auto Assault shipped with no instanced areas so you can stalk someone all over the globe!  So is anyone right on this topic?  The obvious answer is that it takes different strokes for different folks – a game for everyone.  I think it's deeper than that though.  My gameplay style changes over time.  Sometimes, due to time constraints or attitude, I want to be by myself.  Other times I want to head down to the local bar and be with my buddies. (We'll call them guildmates since no one has come out with the class of “Beer Drinking Buddy”! I'd be doing end-game content if I could be that class.)

When I was handed the idea to write about my definition of massively multiplayer, I really sat back and thought about how I interact and how I avoid interacting with others in games.  Here's the deal though, does Massively Multiplayer mean I always have to hang with multi-players?  Should I be able to solo, should we be able to get into a discreet instance of the world, should I be able to hole up in my office or room and not have to interact with anyone? (Oh wait, that's what I call life.)  I guess the answer is, that a good game lets me have fun, a great game le's me have fun all the time regardless of the mood I'm in.  Now where is that awesome Abba CD?