Challenging the MMORPG Premise

by Wisdom

Certain comments were made concerning Massively Multiplayer Online RPGs that I feel need to be addressed. I do not label this a rebuttal because that would require me to structure my argument against another's, and while I do not agree with all of the opinions expressed on the matter, the aforementioned opinions are missing the point entirely. It is hard to argue about gravity when your colleagues are discussing the size of celestial bodies--while they are undoubtedly related, the latter is perfunctory because the former, ultimately, encompasses it. Well, without further ado, let's get to the meat of this mess, eh?

Why does anyone play a game? I'm not necessarily talking about video games. We play games because they are enjoyable--from an economist's standpoint, the marginal benefits of gaming are great enough to warrant the time. But games do not have to be discussed on an individual basis. They share very common features, and in the end boil down to two universal themes: competition and cooperation. Let's avoid the metaphysical and just go with this. I challenge you to find a game that does not involve cooperation or competition. It's impossible--if it doesn't involve one or the other, it's not a game. Even Solitaire involves competition: you are pitting your own skill and foresight against luck. The odds are in your favor, but even the best Solitaire player will tell you that some games cannot be won. The cards simply won't allow it. This chance of loss is exactly what makes that game (and any game) enticing. If there isn't some challenge involved--some chance, however remote, that you may lose this round--there is no point in playing. Cooperation, being a more complex concept than competition, builds on the same premise: cooperation only exists in situations where both parties have something to gain from said cooperation, and it is assumed that the cooperation makes some sort of obstacle more easily surmountable. One-on-one basketball can be entertaining, but I don't think anyone can say that a perfectly coordinated offense is not more impressive. I am beginning to digress, but I feel this point is essential. All games include, to some extent, one and/or the other. The more of both it includes, the more exciting the game is considered. A game of solitaire is not exciting. People get into fistfights over March Madness.

Where do video games fit in, you wonder? As video "games," they follow the same precepts. But the RPG is a special creature. Rather than test the reflexes of the gamer, or his/her ability to solve puzzles, it instead presents the gamer with a system of options and sub-options that, through enough manipulation, will yield victory. This can get extremely complicated. It can involve plenty of strategy, but in the end, you're given a set of options and told to run with them. Depending on the number of options given and how much free agency you're allowed to exercise over those options, the game is labeled "linear" or "non-linear." So far, RPGs don't sound very entertaining, do they? But they are. These options are hidden in characters, whose fates you control, and by a compelling storyline, which gives you personal stake in said options. RPGs hope to make you care about what happens in the game, so that you glean enjoyment when your choice of options results in victory. The most successful RPGs are those that create a sense of empathy within the gamer. That's when the he/she stops thinking: "Hmm, which weapon is worth buying?" and instead says: "Someone has to stop this psychopath." I know people (and I'm sure all of you do too) who've been reduced to tears during gameplay. Defeating the villain at the end gave them an immeasurable amount of pleasure. That's the mark of a successful game. Not only had justice been served, but they had exacted it. They had emerged from the conflict victorious.

But a large crowd of gamers, calling back to role-playing's roots, insisted that RPGs were too solitary. The idea of role-playing was crafted with a group of people in mind: cooperation was an essential element to the mix. Gamers wanted to topple the evil empires and corrupt kingdoms with their friends alongside them. In the 8- and 16-bit eras, RPGs did not offer that sort of cooperation. Role-Playing Games are very story-driven, and because of their large focus on character manipulation, (designed with one person in mind), it was unclear how two people could really participate in an RPG simultaneously. When Secret of Mana was released, it caused an uproar. Friends could play together, controlling different characters, and wage war against the forces of evil. Secret of Mana marks the roots of the MMORPG.

But somewhere between Secret of Mana and Everquest, this idea of cooperation was lost. The average MMORPG lacks the essential elements that define it as a traditional RPG: the character has virtually no effect on the story or the world. Combat involves little, if any, strategy: you push a button, watch your character attack, and pray the numbers come out in your favor. There are no real secrets or side-quests in MMORPGs: everything is optional. This is, as an earlier writer noted, part of their appeal. They are extremely realistic. Everyone's out for themselves. A cohesive plot doesn't line day-to-day activities: most of it is quite random. I've heard this described as one of the most alluring qualities of the MMORPG, and I find that statement incorrect. MMORPGs create a world that is remarkably stagnant, and not at all conducive to the ideals that, by its definition, a Massively Multiplayer Online "game" should.

I want to use Morrowind as an example. It plays just like an MMORPG. You create and customize your own character, you're given free reign over what you want to do and when you want to do it, and it's perfectly possible to pour hours into the game without advancing the plot at all. The only thing missing are the hundreds of people doing the exact same thing. I had more fun playing Morrowind than Everquest, Asheron's Call, or Earth and Beyond. They all played the exact same, with a few innovations here and there. And that's my point, really. MMORPGs were never meant to be open-ended games where you run around with a sword or a spellbook, looking for things to kill and rare items to hoard. They were supposed to involve cooperation. That's the entire premise of an MMORPG, and none of them fulfill it. MMORPGs require no real skill to advance, so it's not as if competition in the games is fierce enough to compensate. If anyone says otherwise, they're lying. The general formula to an MMORPG is point, click, wait for enemy to die, collect treasure (if any), repeat. Occasionally you'll use an item, or if you're a wizard, you'll throw some spells into the mix. But it's not as if you're ever forced to think critically in these games. I don't begrudge them that: they still manage to be fun and that's fine for some people. But I don't think it's enough to warrant their existence. They're missing the point entirely. There is no basis for cooperation. And no, "camping" does not count. Just because a few enemies in the game require more than one party member to kill doesn't mean the game requires cooperation.

I want to see games where you have to cooperate to do almost anything. Where running around aimlessly will get you killed, and where having no less than three people journeying together is considered suicide. And it's relatively simple to achieve. Vary the monster pool so that it is physically impossible to kill all of them without a numerous players. Make some immune to physical attack, and others to magic. Make stealth an integral part of killing others. Disregarding storyline entirely (I leave it to one of my colleagues to address this point), this would fix so many of MMORPGs' problems. First, it would add a serious element of strategy to their gameplay. Which is more important, having a wizard knock off the physically immune creature who's bashing down the fighters, or to tell the fighters to concentrate on the magically-immune enemy hiding in the background, taking potshots? It would also encourage extreme cooperation, because every member's survival literally depends on the actions of the others. I know what many of you are thinking: there are bound to be countless idiots who would abuse this system and get their parties and themselves killed. But in the end, this problem would be alleviated too, because so-called "lamers" would not be able to progress at all unless they gave into the spirit of cooperation. Then you'd have a real MMORPG that would foster a real sense of community. Because every period of play requires other party members, people would go from occasionally questing with a few friends to employing new party members each session. As levels increased, the enemies would require more concentrated attacks: say, for instance, an enemy could only be harmed if a wizard held it in place while a cleric blessed the fighter's weapon. Already we have a scenario where three people need to cooperate in order to proceed.

That is what an MMORPG should be; it's what the genre was meant to encompass. By fostering cooperation, the game becomes infinitely more enjoyable. And why else would you play an MMORPG, if not to band together with complete strangers and fight for a common cause, be it good or evil?