The Soapbox: Reconsidering social media as an MMORPG

    
16
That'll cost you money.

At GDC 2011, Raph Koster gave a talk in which he said, “Games are fundamentally social media and always have been.” You can watch starting at around 58:18 in the video from back then, and it’s admittedly a bit lofty. As a trained educator myself, I don’t agree that simply sharing information and knowledge is a game, as lectures rarely go well. In fact, I often have to make the sharing of information game-like by creating rules and structure that may not be real but creates enough stability that it’s easier to hold, like turning water into ice.

But as Koster starts off, he admits that about every other year, he goes off the rails and gives talks that may even include “erroneous” forecasting. 2011 may have been one of those years, and while I can’t exactly pinpoint when and when Koster may have toned this down and focused more on how other tech like ARGs are MMOs (not MMO-like), I do think it’s something worth discussing as we see more games going into the online-scene, ranging from clear online multiplayer (such as the recent addition to three-year-old local multiplayer game Super Mario Party) to those more fuzzy games like FarmVille or even recently released New Pokemon Snap. Heck, Wikipedia even as a page about itself as an MMO. There’s clearly a spectrum between MMO and non-game online tool, but what does it even look like?

Throughout the aforementioned arguments, Koster often briefly hints at the idea of social media as MMO: Both have avatars and player interaction environments that are persistent, and Koster’s even argued that “likes” are a form of currency, which can be “traded.” But often it feels more like these arguments are made in passing, a stepping stone to his larger points about digital marketplaces and the world slowly blurring the lines between game and reality. Some examples can feel like a bit of a reach, but Koster is typically giving these presentations as a kind of thought exercise meant to make us re-evaluate what we think we know, which was what led me to adopt the eight-point MMO-ness criteria I’ve been using to judge online games.

After reconsidering a few changes in the MMO sphere, like private servers for dead MMOs, I’m going to reorder them and slightly modify one item to put particular emphasis on the aspects I think are more saliently “MMO,” especially for MOP’s readers:

  1. Servers that don’t require or display a population size to start or cap out at. Lobby based games are disqualified if the lobby doesn’t meet the same criteria as the “core” part of the game.
  2. An in-game communication system that allows for conversation, not just reactions.
  3. Real-time interaction (for turn-based action, must be limited to seconds/minutes).
  4. Avatar-based (text, 2-D, 3-D, etc.).
  5. Environment is persistent and interactive.
  6. The environment then leads to player-to-player interaction.
  7. Must have AI to interact with as an integral part of the gameplay system.
  8. Must have some sort of reward system.

While I’ve previously discussed how and why the criteria is what it is, I think the first item should be addressed with some detail. One thing I think objectors often mean when they think they’re informing us that a game “isn’t an MMO” is that it doesn’t have enough concurrent players interacting in a single space. That being said, it’s also hard to peg down what is really “massive,” especially if we also wonder what’s the point of having all those players.

Look at a recent news update we had discussing the number of people who can play Scavengers, then look at the reader comments. Even with thousands of players, the question then comes down to what the players are doing and what the quality is. World of Warcraft’s arguably largest multiplayer PvE features are built for just 40 players max, significantly fewer than some MMORPGs that came before it, and yet WoW is still considered an industry standard.

Conversely, Asheron’s Call, which had interactive storylines based on anything from player “votes” to complex defense movements that involved a portion of the server leveling up a MOB until it required GM intervention to kill, is dead, and only a few titles are brave enough to attempt bringing back this kind of content, with some mixed resultsAC still feels like the very definition of what the genre should be, but clearly it’s not what’s brought the genre into the mainstream, even among our own readers. Look no further than our 2020 Best MMO reader poll. Clearly readers believe more structured games have been performing well, and the game options from the industry support that.

This is why I’ve limited the criteria to servers that don’t publicly show caps. I’ve taken aim at lobby-based games, like in StarCraft or Monster Hunter games, because the “real” game is often very much different from the lobby. For example, while WoW has play-capped raids, it also has content in the rest of the game world that would fit the MMO criteria. The two can be divorced and still work. Conversely, Monster Hunter’s prep areas do not have reward systems for players who might choose to avoid the player-capped hunts. MH’s lobbies could be virtual worlds, but not games.

So now that we have some criteria, as well as examples of what we’d traditionally call an MMO and things that may seem MMO-like, I’d like to try to apply this criteria to Twitter, Venmo, and New Pokemon Snap and see how it holds up – and what that may mean about MMOs as a genre.

CalpheonValkyrieLibrary.jpg

Applying the criteria

Let’s start with a more traditional type of social media for this. Given the past several years, Twitter’s gotten a lot more attention, and thus I would think even people who don’t use social media are probably familiar with the basics: Users have profiles, are able to publicly or privately send out messages/images/gifs, and can give out “Likes” or “Retweets” to promote/share information. Let’s go down the checklist now.

  1. Servers that don’t require or display a population size to start or cap out at. Lobby based games are disqualified if the lobby doesn’t meet the same criteria as the “core” part of the game

I’ve never heard of a lobby or user cap on Twitter, so that’s one MMO point for Twitter.

2. An in-game communication system that allows for conversation, not just reactions 

It’s basically just communication, so yeah, that’s MMO point two for twitter.

3. Real-time interaction (for turn-based action, must be limited to seconds/minutes)

This is where things get fuzzy because Koster applies MMO-ness to things that most of us would argue are certainly not what we’d traditionally call games. Yes, the way one may construct themselves in polite society in order to progress through the social latter to achieve wealth and status despite said actions going against one’s true beliefs is very much a game if you’re being objective about it. We naturally accept these rules because we’ve been “playing” our whole lives, and it’s only when someone who plays the game in a different region comes in and asks, “What’s up with that?” do we realize how arbitrary it is to choose whether it is more correct to lift your soup spoon to your face as to look polite or whether to lift the bowl to one’s mouth and avoid the possibility of spillage that would certainly look bad and waste food.

So with this in mind, “turn-based” action would be conversational turns, in which, yes, Twitter’s interactions are real-time based. We’re on three MMO-points for Twitter now.

4. Avatar-based (text, 2-D, 3-D, etc.)

That’s a big yes, as Twitter gives you the ability to choose your name/handle and change it at will without needing to pay, and you can do the same with your avatar as well. You do have a unique account name that cannot be altered without creating a whole new account, but honestly, I think I’d prefer if more games actually allowed for this. That’s now four MMO-points for Twitter.

5. Environment is persistent and interactive

I’d say this is another big “yes,” but let me back this up a moment. We’re talking about the environment, not an avatar. So while your character in Monster Hunter is getting better gear, the environment is constantly being reset. Diablos can destroy every stone pillar in the level, but at the end of the hunt, those pillars go back up.

Tweets, though, last for years for the most part, and that’s without including sites keeping tabs on certain people’s tweet history, live or deleted. A tweet you made years ago can come back to haunt you, maybe even lead to employment termination if it’s particularly offensive to public tastes. They stay on your page and give an overall atmosphere or impression of you.

I’d argue these are not the same as your avatar as each tweet is a small eco-system that attracts views, Likes, Retweets, and Comments that are separate from the way your Account as a whole is treated.

The fact that people can also reply, like, and share that message clearly shows it’s interactive. That’s now five MMO-points for Twitter. Is anyone else getting nervous?

6. The environment then leads to player-to-player interaction

No surprise, another “Yes” here. As I mentioned, each tweet becomes its own environment. New and separate conversations take off, not even necessarily directly involving the original “player” but just a fraction of the content they’ve shared. That’s now six MMO-points for Twitter.

7. Must have AI to interact with as an integral part of the gameplay system

While there are bots on Twitter, those are often “player-run.” A “single-player Twitter” would be quite dull, as would a five-player Twitter. There are automated systems to help Twitter sort through the muck, but I’d argue that they’re minimal, which is why human moderators are required.

The one area that feels fuzzy is the recommendation algorithm. It could be a kind of “Group Finder” system, as the recommendations should give you a space to discuss things relevant to your interest. It could also work as a kind of quest system, as interacting in those areas would give you ways to earn likes.

However, ad blockers remove some of the “content,” which reminds me that this is part of the monetization. While a game needs funding, it should be able to function without its monetization system. That is, if we were to run Twitter on a private server, then leaving out the monetization system, like recurring subs, shouldn’t affect core gameplay. Similarly, if Twitter’s algorithm were to suddenly be non-functional, we could still use Twitter in almost the same way. For this reason, Twitter does not meet the requirements for point 7.

8. Must have some sort of reward system

Likes act as a reward, even if it’s just warm fuzzies. Views, replies, and retweets could count as well, so we’ll give Twitter the MMO-point, giving Twitter score of 7/8.

Compared to other, more traditional games I’ve used this system on in earlier forms, Twitter surprisingly hits a lot of those MMO notes, particularly the one about the lack of playerbase caps. You can have millions of “players” interacting within a tweet at any one time, so it’s more multiplayer than Monster Hunter and more “massive” than World of Warcraft.

Briefly going through payment service system Venmo reveals it is actually quite similar MMOness as Twitter with a score of 7/8, also tripping up on item 7, as it has no real AI interaction, just simple chat and payment systems. Conversely, New Pokemon Snap, which is clearly a video game, fails on criteria 1 (the online rating system is more of a kind of lobby that cannot stand without the single-player aspect) and likewise fails criteria 2’s communication requirements.

What this means is that you cannot simply say an MMO is any online game with lots of players. As entertaining as this may be as a kind of thought exercise, if you tell someone your main MMO is Twitter, people will look at you sideways. I’d argue replacing Pokemon Snap would give a similar reaction, but perhaps less so as it’s more identifiable as a “game,” and MH would be less problematic but still feel more on-point.

To me, this indicates that an MMO scoring system inherently would have the criteria I’ve outlined at the least, but each criteria would need to have points assigned to it. As criteria 1 is perhaps the most identifiable for the genre, it could be worth 10 points. Criteria 8, rewards, might be viewed as still critical to the genre, but as over-tuned rewards leading to financial game in the real world might threaten that virtual world, we may only want its points limited to 1 because it could be argued that at a certain point, financial gains through gaming then becomes work, not a game.

Again, there’s clearly an MMO-spectrum. I think it’s a disservice to both games and MMO to simply write-off a product as “not an MMO” based on one criteria without understand how various mechanics can make a game feel more of less MMO-y. Determining those criteria has felt difficult enough, not just today but in my past reviews. I’d dare say it may be something the MMO community grapples with, as our recent discussion about loot being the “soul” of an MMO had most of our staff and readers questioning that, yet I think the average person who sees useable combat or avatar-related pixels as an action-reward makes that virtual realm more of a game than one that rewards effort with a simple thumbs-up with a number next to it.

Determining the weight of each criteria we use in assessing what is or is not an MMO is a whole other issue. My question, though, is that do you readers have thoughts on how each of those criteria points should be weighted? Or does it feel like noting how a game does or does not meet that criteria enough to help get a sense of a product’s MMO-ness?

Everyone has opinions, and The Soapbox is how we indulge ours. Join the Massively OP writers as we take turns atop our very own soapbox to deliver unfettered editorials a bit outside our normal purviews (and not necessarily shared across the staff). Think we’re spot on — or out of our minds? Let us know in the comments!
Advertisement

No posts to display

16
LEAVE A COMMENT

Please Login to comment
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most liked
Subscribe to:
Reader
Rick Mills

What about the “RPG” part?

Reader
Sarah Cushaway

Long-abandoned by most MMO devs, sadly. They’re all just e-sport looters now.

Reader
Loyal Patron
Patreon Donor
Neurotic

What is that survival-looking game by point 5? With the axe and the silver birch trees.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

I guess Warframe might fail on the first test criteria there. It’s not a “lobby shooter” the same way as some others, where you drop back to a menu screen between matches. You can stay teamed up with people, and see their Landing Craft out the front window of your Orbiter ship. But the missions are limited to four players (or less, depending on the team settings and/or the whims of the malicious net-god Ping.) The only places where you’ll ever encounter more than three other people are the Relays and the “open world” hub areas like Fortuna and Cetus.

Reader
angrakhan

So you want me to reconsider the most toxic and destructive electronic environment made by man that has been single-handedly responsibility for turning otherwise mature, rational beings into obnoxious know-it-all online bullies, intolerant of any viewpoint other than their own as an MMO?

Ok well let’s look at WoW’s Barrens chat.

Nevermind, I see your point.

Reader
Anstalt

Very interesting article and I like where your mind has gone, I enjoyed reading your thoughts.

I very much disagree with your 8 point criteria for what an MMO is. You’ve way overcomplicated things! Those 8 points may be relevant for assessing whether something could count as a virtual world, but even then I think the criteria is off, or at least incomplete.

What I do appreciate is that you’ve recognised that for a definition to be of any value, you have to be able to test the game against that definition. Thats something many in the community don’t realise.

As for the definition of an MMOG, I’ve got a nice easy one that I basically got from Raph:

MMOG = any game that can support 250+ players within the same virtual online environment.

Thats it.

Very easy to assess, very easy to test. Definition works with most of the old MMORPGs that we all know and love, but doesn’t work on some of the more modern games that rely too much on lobbies, layers and mega-servers.

Now, the 250 number is indeed subjective, because “massively” is a subjective word. But, as long as the number is bigger than normal multiplayer online games (which have a range of 2-128) then you could argue it’s massively multiplayer. If it has less than 128 players, then it is definitely not an MMO.

Fisty
Reader
Fisty

What if it can support 250+, but doesn’t have 250 playing anymore?

Reader
Tuor of Gondolin

That just means it isn’t living up to its potential, not that it lacks the capability.

Reader
Anstalt

It’s about capability rather than popularity.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

Does it need to be in the same instance? Because if they all have to be in the same map, SWTOR fails at being an MMO – only the Fleet stations are set to support more than maybe 50 people per instance (as far as I know.) And I’m pretty sure the Fleet Stations still cap at 100 before it splits and forms a new instance. Especially after they smooshed all the servers down into like, three total and did away with separate PVP servers entirely. (It’s a per character flag, PVP flagged people automatically get shunted into separate instances anywhere combat can happen.)

Reader
Anstalt

It does indeed have to be within the same virtual environment, otherwise you are not playing together.

Think of games like Mario Kart 8. At any given moment there might be 1000 players online racing around the same course, but they’re separated into their own 12-player instances. You wouldn’t say to people that you’re playing with the players in other races, would you?

Likewise with SWTOR, if you are in separate layers or instances, you are not playing together, therefore not counted towards the same multiplayer cap. When I played SWTOR, it had a cap of 75 per instance. I would not call SWTOR an MMOG, because its cap of 75 is below the threshold for being massively multiplayer. It’s just a normal multiplayer game. Absolutely nothing wrong with that at all, im not judging, but for players like myself who play MMOGs for the large scale multiplayer, it was a big disappointment.

[NB: someone here did tell me that the player cap had been increased to 255 in swtor in recent years, so it may be an mmog these days, but I haven’t been able to verify this myself]

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

That seems… kind of arbitrary. If not (no offense intended) actually sort of stupid. I’ve apparently never played a single MMO that is actually an MMO, for one thing. There’s also the tiny little problem that I can’t think of a single game where a population that size can have ANY level of meaningful interaction. 250 players in one zone would mean any kind of combat is basically impossible, short of a turn-based system. (Or one with such glacial cooldowns and movement that it’s *functionally* turn based.)

Hell, Battle Royale games brag that they’ve *finally* gotten tech for a full 100 players to be able to engage in real-time combat. And even people who *like* them give them crap for only being *barely* playable if they all try to get together in the same spot without killing half of them first.

I personally think your definition of “massively” is pretty irrelevant, if the only interaction possible for most people is “stand around and stare at each other all day. It got very boring.” Since as far as I know SWG and COH and STO and SWTOR and Pirate101/wizard101 and *basically every other mmo I’ve ever heard of* cap at far less than 250 players… what game IS a “true” MMO? And in the interest of setting arbitrary personal rules: EVE doesn’t count, because it *literally* turns into a turn based game, and then *slows down the turns* when too many people are present.

Reader
Raph Koster

Text MUDs supported 250 on a single server process in 1995. UO by 1997 handled more like 800 per server process, but of course the multiserver cluster meant that we handled a few thousand in one “zone.”

SWG also used multiserver and handled thousands per planet. Each planet was a contiguous coordinate space — which is the best definition of a zone, probably. A zone doesn’t mean everyone can see each other, of course.

Originally, “massive” meant MUD scale, compared to the prevailing norm for online gaming, which was more like 16 player Quake matches at the time.

EmberStar
Reader
EmberStar

Okay then. Thank you for clarifying. I have been corrected, and by someone in a position to know way more about game development and terminology than I ever will.