The Future of the End Game
In many online games today, the end game means one of a few things. For some, it means ascending to the point of endeavoring to conquer a limited set of difficult but predictable encounters (raiding). Players who call this their end game often compete indirectly against other guilds to defeat a raid first. For others who fall into this category perhaps a bit later (temporally), it’s more for the acquisition of powerful items that can only be found during these raids.
But for other types of players, the end game means something entirely different. For some, it means the end of the challenges they desire to overcome. They’ve made their way to the end of the progression of their character’s life, and either stick around for a variety of reasons or move on to another game. They may stick around because of the friends they’ve made, at which point the end game becomes primarily a social endeavor. Others may instead reroll and create a new character, possibly taking on another path that is unique enough to keep them engaged.
In my opinion the options that I’ve presented, though they don’t necessarily encapsulate all of what happens in the end game of traditional MMOs, are severely limited in that they lack in the interest department. They don’t have any sort of near-permanent staying power, except perhaps the social dynamic which can keep players in a game for years that they’d have otherwise left after several months. There has to be something else.
I have a few theories about where the end game will go in future online games. All of the alternatives that appeal greatly to me involve very dynamic experiences that are often player-driven in nature. After all, you can’t have a truly dynamic game or truly dynamic content unless you draw from many different sources, and players are likely our greatest asset.
This could mean one of the areas that I’m timid to even think about–player-created content. Players might be able to make quests for their friends or even design their own areas of the game. Where I tend to tread without becoming frightened is in the realm of alternate social structures for players to ascend.
As the elders in a game world, players may choose to create missions for others using a limited set of options. A drag-and-drop quest maker that allows players to do things like determine what creatures a player needs to kill, how many, where, etc., and the rewards would automatically be determined by the game based on its difficulty. It could go further (perhaps the designers or even the game itself determine that a particular family has a vendetta against another, and the elder players can task others with participating in this intrigue to help unfold the plot), but that’s the tip of the iceberg and its easy to digest.
The inhabitants of your world (the players) might join a political structure within the game and work their way up. They may have an opportunity to not only perform quests and gain titles that say they are a “Captain of the Guard,” but they could even become what their title states they are. Mayors of cities who set taxes on item sales within the city, ban or allow questionable goods, commit money to areas of development (spend more money in research, and your city will sell more advanced items; commit money to training soldiers, and your guards and armies will be more formidable; etc.).
That’s not the only avenue for players to take in the future, however. My personal belief is that player competition is where the future of the end game will become the most involving. PvP isn’t entirely required, though I feel it adds to the excitement. Players may be building their own towns, forming their own factions, forging real alliances with players and NPCs, betraying each other for coin and comforts, and all manner of other interesting competitive acts.
It may be as simple as attempting to establish your own town and fend it off against NPCs of the enemy factions, seeing who can maintain and grow their cities and become powerful in the world. It may be a bit more complex, allowing players to mount attacks on enemy cities by ordering their NPC soldiers to do so, or they may slowly lure deadly creatures from the depths of the forests to the very walls of their enemy city (i.e. dynamically affect the areas in which certain creatures spawn based on their behavior).
Where I want it to go is to the world of PvP. Players becoming members of real factions, owning real lands and cities, and fighting real epic battles with one another for supremacy. Player factions may align themselves with existing NPC factions, or they may become independent (maybe provoking NPC factions to take notice and request alliances or declare war). They’ll have a stake in keeping their own lands safe from creature invasions, from enemy factions, and they’ll be responsible for helping out new players to the game.
A continually dynamic environment that changes on the NPC side and the PC side, creating political intrigue, honing deep social ties, and most importantly making a game that is vibrant, entertaining, and constantly surprising. There is always something new for the game to offer you, even if you’ve reached the pinnacle of epicitude in character development.
When will we see the future? When players ask for more. When players are no longer content to participate in the same raid encounters over and over again to get themselves the Ultimate Platinum Super Sword of Vengeful Doom and Damnation. When publishers and developers alike realize that this is what players want–meaningful interactions with their world, a stake in the reality of the game, and a superiorly dynamic and engaging experience.
here’s one player who ready for more.
but i think the problem with waiting for players to ask for more is that most players don’t know how to express what they truely want.
most of them have been playing MMOs for so long that they can’t see the forest for the trees. so they ask for things which would actually go against creating a dynamic environment. which leaves them less interested in the MMO. i have no doubt that everyone would be far more interested by a dynamic environment.
you don’t ask a child what it wants for dinner, because 9 out of 10 times it will say “ice cream” (or some other such not-so-healthy food).
that’s not to say that MMO players are children, but more that they have a similar mindset in that they lack broader view of what would result in a healthier existence.
i think the development community needs to take the initiative and begin to create more dynamic MMOs before players begin asking for more. because you’ll never see a majority of players asking for more.
once you’re entrenched in the MMO playing community, it’s difficult to drag yourself up and out enough to be able to see things clearly.
developers have the advantage because they (ideally) exist in a place where they can see things clearly, as long as they don’t allow themselves to become entrenched in MMO playing. therefore they have a responsibility to use that clear-seeing to do what’s best for the health and vitality of an MMO.
a parent who feeds their kid ice cream every night for dinner should be ashamed of themselves. the same goes for a developer who creates WoW (or something like it) over and over, every time.
There are some games out there that do this already, but their orientation is drastically different than that of the traditional MMORPG. Second Life is the one that leapt immediately to mind. Players can create items and functions within the game, and they own the IP for that. Land can be purchased and developed. But that game is not a persistent world, with a dedicated plot (i.e. lore) that needs to be kept on track.
My first experience with MMORPGs was with one of their ancestors, MUDs, back in the early ’90s. I played on one where not only could one become a Wizard, which entitled you to create a zone of the game yourself, but a few of us became gods, actually writing code for the game itself. It was a persistent world, in that the players could not permanently change the way the world looked or acted, but it had the expandability of players being able to add things once they became wizards. There was no overarching theme, though, so wizards weren’t restricted by lore by what they could do, and balance was primarily maintained by the gods (as well as we could).
I have a hard time seeing a for-profit run game that tries to preserve a ‘look and feel’ and a particular history/lore being able to allow much player-based content. Restrict it too much to keep it in bounds, and players will stop using it in a short while. Open it up too much, and you are liable to get some very inappropriate situations, both in terms of the world lore and just taste.
Damnation. When publishers and developers alike realize that this is what players want–meaningful interactions with their world, a stake in the reality of the game, and a superiorly dynamic and engaging experience. posted by Ryan Shwayder @ 22:36 Comments Off
Ryan,
To truly achieve the eutopian “end game” that you are describing a game must truly be dynamic. Where the story-line changes based on the actions of the player community. With this theory specific storylines would be different from server to server based upon the actions and alliances of players.
I think there are several avenues in which you could achieve this. Dynamic zone content and loot, where if a zone is over played the difficulty and loot actually decrease due to over hunting. And zones or areas that are not adventured in actually grow tougher mobs who amass more loot.
It would also help to have a story line that players have a stake in. The destruction of their town reduces the support so they have to fight to get that back. The simple good versus evil dynamic does fit this mold very well.
A game where alliances are made and lost, where there is truly a purpose behind player actions.
I know there isn’t much fidelity to my comment because there truly are hundreds of ways to achieve this, we just need to get past the attack mob, kill mob, gain exp, gain loot and do it all over again model is transformed into a new vehicle for adventure.
~Ryni Nevertanks
Ahhh, one of my favorite subjects when it comes to MMOs – Player Created Content!
It is nice to see that others are on the same wavelength when it comes to the envisioning of the future of MMOs – Player Created Content (PCC) is something I strongly believe will become *the* distinguishing features that MMOs offer; and the level type of PCC that the game allows is what will set them apart from the competition.
I can envision when MMOs start allowing players to create more than just the simple items they can now in most MMOs ? currently these items are nothing more than an icon that you see in-game, which is associated with a predetermined rendered model when wielded/worn/displayed.
I wrote an article that got posted on Aggro Me about a year ago (http://aggrome.blogspot.com/2005/07/thoughts-on-player-created-content-in.html); it shares my ideas on the subject – give it a read if you?d like.
I really get excited when it comes to the idea of PCC showing up in my MMOs. I can?t wait for the day when players can actually shape the world they game in, because I think that ultimately it is the idea of making your mark on the world you live/game in is what creates a sense of belonging. Through this sense of belonging, I can envision a greater loyalty in customer(player)-base, and this loyalty in customer-base should extend the longevity that titles will experience.
With the costs of creating games constantly rising, I can see this extended longevity in a dedicated customer-base balancing out the ballooning budgets required in creating such games.
I wish the types of end-games mentioned in your post the comments were the reality. I don’t consider myself a fan of PVP but I’d defend a player created town/city/terrority with all the I had! My problem with PVP as it currently exists is that it does very little to improve or develop my character other than more loot. Well I can get enough phat loot doing the endlessly tedious weekly raids.
Player designed content provide additional emotional incentive for players – both those who develop and those who get to experience fantasy content designed by their peers. The Sims franchise is an example of a game that spawned a massive following based on player designed content. For MMOs the persistent content and environment alterations of the EVE Online player-base is another game which shows that their is value and interest in dynamic player generated content.
Other than loot (armor and weapons) character advancement is dead in the end-game. You max out your professions, skills and become the farming masses when you’re not raiding.
Think statistics. PVP gets you part of the way there, with a PK leaderboard and such, but you can also get there by finding challenging things for players to do at maximum level, and seeing who can do the most of them. How many top-level mobs has the character killed ?
Chasing ever-greater riches also has its appeal but I suspect that introduces too many economic balance issues.
I’d love to play that political dynamic game you are talking about. I just wouldn’t graft it as “endgame” on a classic leveling up MMORPG. Why should a player who is interested to interact in the political life of a city be forced to first kill a million foozles to level up to 60?
Chances are that a player who likes the leveling up game, and there are many, is less happy about whatever else comes after it. While the players who like the “endgame” consider leveling up to reach this to be a chore.
I would also agree that such an end game doesn’t belong in a classic level grind MMO. It does, however, fit into the ideal MMO in my mind, which I may one day reveal (parts of it can be pieced together just from reading the site, and eventually I’ll have talked about enough topics that you could figure out my ideal MMO without me telling you about it).
Great write/up Ryan!
The biggest challenge for the eventual designers(I think games like this do not exist at all, but are bound to happen) is to enforce the social mechanics.
When player competes against player with an ability to influence the success of others, some will try to all tricks including those not intended to get ahead.
I think the core mechanic needs to be that every action that you take which will affect another player has a consequence.
[IMG] Right after this picture of a Balloon Animal Perilously Suspended above Barbed Wire was taken…nothing happened. Ryan ponders the the future of MMORPG’s and how they should end. Are video games good for you? Research says “YES”, Thomas wonders how true that really is. Jason looks at unabandoning abandonware
[IMG] Right after this picture of a Balloon Animal Perilously Suspended above Barbed Wire was taken…nothing happened. Ryan ponders the the future of MMORPG’s and how they should end. Are video games good for you? Research says “YES”, Thomas wonders how true that really is. Jason looks at unabandoning abandonware
I think there are two ways to look at the endgame.
Make it truely the end of the game! The game “A Tale In The Desert” (http://www.atitd.com) does the very brave thing of actually ENDING the game when things reaches their conclusion. At present it is in its third “telling” using some of the things learnt previousl. A telling takes in the order of 12-18 months it seems.
Using this mechanism implies that reaching the end stage of the game is a collective effort. The player base as a whole needs to move towards it. This means that there is a natural need and place for leaders and craftspeople and grunts. Add to this the good vs evil plot and your end game becomes a truely epic sturggle.
Another way to look at the end game is in terms of story arcs. The end game becomes the end of a major story line. Wether this means an epoic battle, the death or defeat of some major monster or leader, the aversion of catastrophe or an epic disaster does not matter. What does matter is the story and the fact that it changes the world. Being able to tell others that “I was there when the Foozle of Doom was defeated at the gates of Happy Town” is what makes it attractive.
In terms of the game mechanics it means a couple of things. Firstly some events will be unique in an absolute sense. There can be only one “Last Battle”. After this event the world and its structures must be noticably different. X was defeated by Y, so Y is now on the throne and Y has some changes in mind. You backd the losing side? Now you wont have access to all the resources and towns you had before.
BUT… story arcs can overlap. THIS story arc came to an end but another one has been in development for some time now. This story will now become the main focus.
I think that the end game we all want is not some “fire and forget” content made by the developer. We want it to be dynamic and to have meaning. Unfortunately this means a lot more commitment from the deverlopers and game maintainers. But as long as we the players dont make ourselves heard through spending our dollars (or not) it is unlikely that developers will want to commit to such a potentially more expensive undertaking.
Perhaps its time to get more vocal about some indi games and the innovation that is happening there.
Uru Live. If anything is going to have real dynamic content, it’s going to be that
If I might direct you towards Aetolia, as well as the other Iron Realms MUDs…
From the main page of Aetolia (www.aetolia.com);
“Join a thriving city, skilled guild, noble house, religious Order, or clan. Or embrace the darkness and become one of the walking dead: a vampire!
Conquer foes with the deepest, most complex combat system around. Lead troops into battle with our epic warfare and diplomacy system.
Create and sell goods of your own design with our huge variety of craft skills. Set up a shop of your own and grow wealthy as a merchant.
Ascend to the highest ranks of political office, where your decisions will shape the history of the world. Or aspire to the ultimate challenge: that of becoming a God!”
Granted, this is a text-based MUD rather than a MMORPG, but in essence the concept is the same.
quote :”When players are no longer content to participate in the same raid encounters over and over again to get themselves the Ultimate Platinum Super Sword of Vengeful Doom and Damnation.”
Right, really. But a MMORPG as well as a MUD or just a good RPG game pretending to be as various as an online game lack something: decay. a Player will NEVER be weaker than before, making it a monotone ascension to greatness. a Player competion is useless when you lose nothing or nearly nothing.
In real life people may lose everything with just an incidental event and have to “RESTART”. And all of us know how frustrating it is in a videogame so this is not agreeable. But when you can save & reload every about 5 seconds because the TERRIFYING end-level monster is just too hard to beat you begin to not fear it anymore, and just get bored.
So, maybe a village elder has some extra motivation, apart amuse himself beholding the hero’s deeds, when he gives him a quest. He NEEDS some help. he can’t battle with monsters anymore and needs new, young armstrenght…
Damn, man, that’s a nice concept… constant player decay. We need to implement that into all online RPG’s pronto.
Theme of the Month: EndGame WoW End Game Culture, from, yup Nick Yee and the Daedalus Project Guide to Life after 60 A blog opinion How do you want your MMO to end? Re-Visioning the Endgame The most interesting post, of course, from Terra Nova