Lens on What Is An MMO?

Well I use "MMO" as shorthand for "MMORPG", but since the blog is entitled "Lens on MMOs" it made more sense for this column to be labelled as "What Is An MMO", but it's really "What is an MMORPG" since an MMORPG is a type of MMO because all MMORPGs are MMOs but not all MMOs are MMORPGs.  Everyone confused?

Excellent, then let us commence!

DEFINITIONS EVERYWHERE!

Google up "definition of mmorpg" and you'll get a whole bunch of links, almost 4 million of 'em.  I'll just mention a couple at the top...

Wiktionary describes it as "An online computer role-playing game in which a large number of players can interact with one another."  Wow is that generic and underwhelming.  Not wrong, but not sufficient.

Wikipedia has an almost identical definition, but also lists common features, "persistent game environment, some form of progression, social interaction within the game, in-game culture, system architecture, membership in a group, and character customization".  Now we're getting somewhere.

Webopedia (which I've never heard of before) says "online role-playing multiplayer games which allow thousands of gamers to play in the game's evolving virtual world at the same time via the Internet."  Pretty generic but a bit more descriptive than the Wikidefintions above.  No feature list though.

PCMag's encyclopedia differentiates it from a regular computer RPG because "its environment is perpetual. People log in, join the game, take on their role and leave whenever they wish, but the game continues."  Not very descriptive, but important.

There are a bunch more definitions, but most simply fall into "an online RPG with lots of players" which I suppose could be the simplest description of the acronym, but it's not much of a description of what an MMO is.

Bartle (inventor of the ludicrous "Bartle Test") said that MMORPGs (he was talking about MUDS but since his "test" is applied to MMORPGs his paper on MUDS applies as well) are games to achievers, pastimes to explorers, sports to killers, and entertainment to socializers.  But since he's entirely full of shit, we can pretty much ignore him.  Why is he full of shit?  Well his 2-dimensional (x,y) of player types described by the Bartle test was so comprehensive he himself added a third axis (x,y,z).  I look forward to more dimensions being added as he attempts to simply describe MUD/MMORPG players with his horoscope-like accuracy.

If you'd like to read an actual scholarly work on player types as opposed to Bartle's make-believe horoscope model, I strongly suggest Nick Yee's work, for instance http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/archives/pdf/3-2.pdf  It's long and detailed but worth the effort.

SO WHAT'S YOUR DEFINITION LENS?

While I was thinking about this article over the last few day, I found myself getting further away from the standard definitions and gravitating to certain features.

Because of the changing nature of MMOs (again, I'm back to shortening MMORPG for the rest of the column), the definition has become a lot more fluid.  10 years ago, the list of games that anyone might call an MMO was pretty damned small.  Of the widely recognized games you had DaoC, AO, AC, EQ, and UO.  If you look at a relatively comprehensive list (for instance http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/show/all/sCol/estimatedRelease/sOrder/desc ) at the other games released at the time you can make a pretty good guess at the types they were.

10 years ago, an MMORPG was a pretty standardized experience.  The games had enormously shared experiences.  Sure some mechanics would vary, but most everything you'd see still exists in games like WoW.

Today the definition is definitely getting hazy at the fringes.  The original Guild Wars and DDO didn't fit the textbook definition because of their instanced gameplay, but today they might pass muster.  A game like Glitch would have an EQ player scratching their head and going "WTF!?" but I consider it to definitely fall into the category.  Even though it doesn't really have any combat component, something unimaginable throughout most of MMO history.

So for me, the definition is now being reduced to a feature-set.  Games that have these features are either MMORPGs are so close that we're splitting hairs.  Today's "not quite an MMORPG" is tomorrow's "of course it's an MMORPG!"

I initially narrowed my definition down to four features that are required...

THE BIG FOUR (it was three but while writing this I decided there was another one!)

PERSISTANCE--There is a game world that exists, whether we are playing in it at any given moment or not.  Things continue to happen.  In fact, some things can happen to us, whether we're in-game or not.  We can learn new skills (Glitch, EVE Online) while we're logged out, we can sell goods (via an auction house or personal in-game store vendor), and so on.

And when we log in to our game, we see that the world has persisted in our absence.  Our own little in-game existance persists within the larger persistant world.  This creates a sense of ownership and involvement.  We are a part of the ongoing story of this world.

PROGRESSION--But just being a part of the world isn't enough.  We want to see ourselves grow to be more than we were, over time.  A persistant world in which we progress is necessary to make an MMO.  Now the definition of progression can be pretty flexible.  Classically it would be the question "What level are you?"  But there are many other types of progression.  EVE has "How many skill points have you trained" as a ballpark.  For level-capped WoW players (a huge proportion after two years without an expansion) it might be "What are you raiding these days?" or even "What's your gear score?"

On it's most basic level, progression is about perception (you might find this extraordinarily brilliant column on that concept helpful:  http://lensonmmos.blogspot.com/2012/06/lens-on-perception-of-progress.html  What an insightful writer!).  The old saying about sharks is that they move forward or die, and there's a similar concept in MMOs:  perceive progress or quit.

And even in games with the standard levelling, you can still have those who find a different kind of progress satisfying.  In WoW it might be pet collecting, achievement completion or monopolizing a market.

Progression is the motivation any given player finds to continue playing.  Because if there is no sense of accomplishment, there is no drive to continue playing.  When people run out of "content" to progress through (however they define "content"), they're done.

COMMUNITY--The two letters, "MM" stand for "massively multiplayer", so there's something of a community definitionally.  But a person can, conceiveably, play something like WoW as a purely individual fashion.  Turn off chat and treat all the other players as NPCs with poorly-written AI and you're good to go!  But even playing like that...community still exists, even if you choose to banish yourself from it.

So a player doesn't have to be an active part of the game community, but the game must have that community and provide access to the community for those who desire it.

Realistically this means things like grouping, guilds, chat, auction house, and so on.  This allows for the social element in MMOs to thrive.

I, personally, am more of a solo player than a grouper.  I often play MMOs as "minesweeper with chat" as I've described it in the past, essentially playing the persistance and progression part of the game as a single-player RPG...but with community.  And I've quit games where the persistance and progression worked well enough, but I didn't have (or couldn't find) the community needed to keep me playing

IDENTITY--Every player needs to have some sort of projection of the self into the game.  A friend of mine likes to mock the "special snowflake" syndrome, where everyone thinks they are different, especially pertaining to games.  But what matters isn't being a special snowflake, but at least the illusion of some degree of special snowflakiness along with some control as to the nature of special snowflakiness.

Differentiation comes in many different flavors.  Character creation options, gearing, cosmetics, pets, player housing, even something as simple as the character name is often an attempt to project some identity into the game-world as a whole.

In many ways this can be incredibly "sticky", keeping players around longer than simple game-play factors might.  This personalized differentiation is compelling and, if absent it's hard to see how a game filled with indistinguishable players could even be designed, let alone reach market or survive.

After all, it's called a "role-playing game", so the roles matter.

OTHER FEATURES AND FACTORS?

What I termed "The Big Four" above are necessary and perhaps sufficient for me to describe any game that has them as an MMORPG.  The wikipedia definition includes a few other features, and while they can provide extra traction I'm not so sure that they need to be in the definition...

In-game culture: by this I assume they mean a game setting with "lore".  And I don't think this is needed.  You could have an MMO start with a completely blank slate (A "tabula rasa" as it were [Hah!  MMO humor!  I kill me!]) and entirely let the world be defined by the players over time.  In fact...that might make a great game concept!  But if a setting is needed...well it's needed in all games.

System architecture: uh...game systems?  All games have those, so yeah, an MMO is going to have those because it's a game, not because it's an MMO.

Membership in a group:  part of community, thanks!

Character customization:  part of identity, thanks!

A lot of things are added on to MMOs, but I don't think any are definitionally necessary, whether they are welcome or not.  Commerce?  There are lots of other types of progression.  Story?  A welcome part of in-game culture, but as I mentioned above, you could design something that's obviously an MMO but has no story or lore other than what the players create.  PvP?  Hah...plenty of MMOs have PvP absent or an afterthought.

But let's assume for a second that I have successfully captured The Big Four, the four characteristics that are necessary and sufficient for a game to be an MMO...

Using only those four things, how much can we distort the standard MMO norms and make a game?  How weird, how unconventional, how revolutionary could we get?

With the way MMOs are changing within the genre, and given how many MMO mechanisms are metastasizing through gaming and gamification outside of the gaming culture, what can be made from The Big Four?

Will these things really be MMOs?  Will we know the difference?