Genetically Modified Gaming Comments by Rob Fahey

I see you point, but this isn't a direction I'd like to see games going in. The core ideas of MMOs - player persistency, levelling, finding new gear - all go hand in hand with them being massive time sinks. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go through all of this, I'd much rather play through a game and see all there is to see in 10 to 30 hours than have to grind for months before getting to the high-level content.

It's not that I have a short attention span, it's just that nowadays I have a lot of things to do other than play games, and I prefer being able to experience diverse games when I do play, rather than having to dedicate myself to one game to get the most out of it.

I understand that reaction, but if anything, I think what CoD4 proves is that you can retain the addictive quality without having to make the game into a massive grind.

The main reason why existing MMOs are massive time sinks is simply because they want you to pay another 8 to 10 pounds next month. The subscription fee encourages developers to pad out their content, and they try to strike a balance where they have just enough tedious, timewasting tasks to make sure it takes ages to do anything - while simultaneously having just enough compelling content to keep you coming back.

Quite rightly, a lot of gamers think this is rubbish. Hell, I run around World of Warcraft with level 70 characters nearly every weeknight, and *I* think it's rubbish - it's just addictive rubbish. But if you drop the subscription fee and find a better way to do business, or simply take the ideas of MMOs and transplant them into a normal, "35 quid up front and that's your lot" kind of game, then you can potentially get all the wheat with none of the chaff. COD4 does it quite well - and I'm looking forward to seeing what other developers will do with it too.

Convincing. I also agree with the first comment, and the second one as well. I must have turned into a limp crumb during breakfast.

I've been playing too much GTA4... I read the title and thought it would be an article about Brucie.

ur articles kinda suck rob

"In many ways, the system I've just described is a more important part of the MMO concept than the whole "massively" element itself."

I strongly disagree. It is the /least/ important part of the idea of an MMO. The attractive elements of an MMO have nothing to do with systems of addiction. Game design to encourage addiction is simply more used in MMOs because of the subscription pay method.

Strange how Battlefield 2 did not get a mention in that article.

The way i see it, CoD4 copied and then diluted the BF2 game to make it console friendly and more appealing.
Thats not to take anything away from Infinity Ward, they have given the masses what they wanted.

Reason why player numbers in COD4 are consistently high: a level one person has a reasonable chance of killing a lvl 55 person. Skill will mitigate this, as will the addons of weapons, but it is generally about more choice rather than being, well, just better. If mmos embrace this concept I imagine they'll see plenty of more "casual" players join in.

While CoD4 has the persistent character models of an MMO, it lacks (as the article says) the 'massive' part. More importantly, it has one of the worst multiplayer matchmaking systems I have seen in a next gen console. There is absolutely no determinable 'ping matching' going on. The host migration is a joke. The fact that you are thrown into a pre-started game, no matter what time is left in the game.

WoW has instances that allows upto 40 man raids, in dungeons and out in the open world.

"Strange how Battlefield 2 did not get a mention in that article."

Aye, I haven't played CoD4 myself (yet) but it sounds awfully familiar to what BF2 did about three years ago.

Anyway, the "massive" is idd lacking in both BF2 and CoD4 obviously but if you look at most MMO's they also lack that "massive" part. How many of these games actually give you the feeling you're in a real war for example? Or a real world where you can have an impact? It's not just about the huge number of players dancing around simultaneously on your screen (and to be honest, there are barely MMO's out there which can do just this part "right") but about what their long-term goals are, it shouldn't be a simple skirmish on the same batteground with the exact same objectives every time and the leveling definitely shouldn't be the main reason to keep on playing as well because yes, that would just be a useless timesink.

I think games like CoD4 and BF2 have their place but there is a huge gap in the online FPS world for something much, much bigger. So, to all devs in the world, give me a proper PlanetSide 2-style of game please, I think I am not the only one craving for that.

Good article. I've noticed that the (what I consider to be) better thought out articles on EG generate minimal comments, whereas other articles with a more simplistic premise (e.g. GTA 4 PS3/360 comparison) generate a billion. I'm not trying to take away from the article, as it was incredibly in depth and a good read in itself). What this means, I have no idea, but any point stated would no doubt include the general intellectual curiosity of the average interwizzle reader.

Back OT, I agree with the idea that games with an element of MMO - i.e. character persistency et al.- are the way forward, as the article states it gives the player more interest in his online character, and offers a meaningful reward to progression instead of some rubbish achievement points. Roll on games with MMO-esque progression - as a jaded 30-something gamer, it's ideas like this that will encourage me to continue buying games.

The key part of both CoD4, WoW and yes, BF2, is character progression.

Its the idea that you are investing time in something to receive something back.

In CoD4 its better weapons, unlocks, achievements, etc.

In WoW it is better gear.

You only have to look at the prevalence of rank or stat systems on Counter-Strike and its ilk to see that people want:

a) A measure of how they compare to other people, and

b) A sense of having done something in the time they are logged in.

Many single player games offer b). A lot of multiplayer games offer a), albeit on a short scale (e.g. over the course of a map). I believe most non-casual gamers want a) and b). MMOs and the likes of CoD4 offer both and are the more successful because of it.

@cw- Several FPS games allow you to play with up to 64 players... but the number of players is not really the point.

I totally agree with the first post - I find MMO's far too slow and tedious and I just haven't been able to get into them... I really, really hope that devs don't try and make their games into a grind fest in an attempt to copy the MMO model, it would be really depressing :(

COD4 is good, but it is definitely not anything like an MMO. Having stats persist between game sessions is far more a multiplayer RPG element. I don't really see it being as something taken from the MMO model at all...

Some interesting stuff here Rob :) The whole "what is an MMO" (or even an MMORPG).. or just what are it's core elements is a very murky field. There is very little consensus there unfortunately, so it gets to be a very complex thing to discuss without explaining everything in excrutiating detail. Simple language fails us once again.


If it's permissable to self-pimp here, some of the ideas in this article reminded me of my, admitedly rather unpolished brain-dump take on some of this, which came at it from a different angle... http://agoners.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/...