Interesting Article

[Sanvean]

There's an interesting article by Richard Bartle on MMORPGs, which has a few places that are applicable to Armageddon.  I thought some of the people on here might enjoy reading it:

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20041103/bartle_pfv.htm

[Tamarin]

Neat.

[Agent_137]

I'm in the middle of reading it right now. I don't like it. It's defeatist, and excludes mature players.


Let me rephrase:

I think it's a well written interesting article, but I disagree with most of his points due to his assumptions about the nature of a newbie.

i.e. "In virtual worlds, the hardcore either wanders from one to the next, trying to recapture the experience of their first experience or they never left in the first place."

WRONG. The hardcore come to Armageddon after a long journey through the shitty muds out there. Then the hardcore are happy, and stay until they stop mudding all together. :mrgreen:

Also, I came to this game. I like it. Ergo, there must be others out there that will like it.

Lo, there are! We survive. Hell, we increase. Check who at peak time now, and then go find one of your ancient logs from years ago. See what the who was at peak time. Sure as fuck not 60!

I don't want a bunch of 12 year olds playing this damn game, anyway. I don't like 12 year olds. I have to deal with them when I play counter-strike. "It's like playing cards with my brother's kids or something."

[Dakkon Black]

It was an interesting read, It seems clear to me now that my pc should have teleportation so I can play with my friends.

So.. if you can get that going Sanvean that'd be great

:lol:

[Linedel]

He doesn't know what he's talking about.

He's mixing genres heavily... permanent death makes sense in small, moderated, role playing heavy environments.  Fine.  But his post is repeatedly talking about MMOGs, where the first M means "massively".  (I think he said MMORPG, but that term is kind of dated.  A few experimented, but no major MMO game producer is pushing RP with any degree of seriousness.)

But on games with maybe 5% roleplaying, that are based on getting together to kill "large" things and community rather than story cohesiveness?  Permanent death would just constantly reset people's levels, breaking the ability for people to group together, thus damaging community... player count goes to zero.


More important than trying to decide whether X feature is good or bad, it is important for the developers of a game to know where they're going.  If you're building an Armageddon-like game, most of what he said is true.  If you're building Diablo, which is an excellent game for what it is - mindless clicking through hordes of whatever... or EverQuest, which is less about Quest than about bonding with 60 of your guildmates while you sit in the Txevu for 6 hours trying to figure out how to kill Zun Tunat Muram... his points become less relevant.

RP will never be mass market.  Compare the number of Armageddon-style games with stock ROM (or whatever is out there in the MUD world these days).  Certain of his points are valid for certain genres, but since he tried to apply it to the entire field of online games, Bartle is wrong.

Edit: adding quote.

i.e. "In virtual worlds, the hardcore either wanders from one to the next, trying to recapture the experience of their first experience or they never left in the first place."

WRONG. The hardcore come to Armageddon after a long journey through the shitty muds out there. Then the hardcore are happy, and stay until they stop mudding all together.  

By hardcore, he means the people that play 18 hours a day (there are more than you'd believe), not the people that play "hard" games.  The hardcore he's referring to would go through Armageddon's content in 1-2 months and be gone.

[jhunter]

I say someone e-mail the guy and have him come give Arm a try...then see what he has to say. If nothing has changed...then he's an idiot.

[John]

Newbies don't do text.

You got that all you newbies? Go away, because obviously you shouldn't be here

No offense, but this just sounds like some bitter person's ranting. He does have some interesting points and some obvious ones and some wrong ones. But in the end it sounds like he's fairly bitter.

[Seeker]

Thank you for making this article available to us.  I found it interesting, and was pleased to see thoughtful consideration of the subject matter.


Seeker

[Bestatte]

While I disagree with a few points he makes, I like the provocation he inspires in his article.

I should point out, to those who say he's an idiot, or wrong, or ignorant, or whatever - that Richard Bartle is one of the originators of the first MUD, aptly called - MUD.

He's the Grand-daddy of all -multiplayer- online text games. Our fearless founder, the one we pay tribute to whenever we log into any multiplayer online text game.

In the world of multiplayer online text games, he is God.  And yes, even God can be mistaken, or out of the loop. I do agree with him that the vast majority of muds are crap, founded and created by newbies who want only to recapture what they, in their egotistical minds, have lost to other newbies wanting to change things - or not wanting to change things - or not even showing up to decide if they want to change things or not.

Armageddon fills a VERY small niche in the gaming world. Even if you break it down into the category of "strict RP Intensive vs. all other muds" You have maybe a dozen at most, out of several hundred games. And only the top five are populated. The rest struggle, or die utterly.

I don't believe Bartle is referring to Armageddon or its compadres in the RPI category at all, but rather about the mud-gaming industry as a whole.

[Ayashah]

PD is short-term bad, long-term good: rejected.

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeek, we are rejects!!!

*dashes about*


LOL

That was an interesting read and quite humorous also at times also. I didnt find it offensive and I could apply what he wrote to some prior muds. ARM is a rare mud and doesnt quite fit in with his theories.

[skeetdaddle]

From the article:

Point #1: Virtual worlds live or die by their ability to attract newbies
Point #2: Newbies won't play a virtual world that has a major feature they don't like.
Point #3: Players judge all virtual worlds as a reflection of the one they first got into.
Point #4: Many players will think some poor design choices are good.

I would like to address some of his points here particularly in reference to Arm. Being only a moderately experienced player myself, (oldest char lived 13 RL days), perhaps I can shed a little light on how these points might relate to newbs and the Arm experience. Point #4: I have seen very few "poor design" choices on Arm. I think this has a lot to do with the fact that Arm is a group effort, and the democratic process naturally help eliminate any bad decisions. Point#3: While I can see how this is probably true, I think anyone with a true desire for quality RPing will seek out the better MUDs and eventually adapt and accept the rules of a new MUD, as long as it lives up to a decent standard of RPing. In my personal opinion, any other type of MUD is esentially a waste of time. If I want hack-and-slash, I'll go play Diablo for a while. Point #2: This is true, and I don't think there's really much to be done about it. You can't please everyone. Point #1: The best for last. This is the one point that I think strongly relates to Arm, since I have heard from several more experienced players that the overall player base just ain't what it used to be. I think the problem is not that people won't play text-based games, but that the people that will aren't always the ones you would think of. One of the biggest overlooked potential player-bases in my opinion is RL table-top RPers - you know, D&D and Shadowrun kids? I notice a lot of people on Arm that have a heavy computer background. Me? I went to college to learn how to play the piano, but I table-top RP'd on the side. THAT is how I got into this.  And is that not the type of crowd that Arm would ultimately like to draw anyways? People that WANT to roleplay? My suggestion for getting more newbs on Arm, (and of a higher quality than most), is to tell all your gaming buddies about it. Or even make a flyer and go to your local college/nerd-store's gaming circle and give them flyers. Most dorks own a computer, (I use the term in the highest regards.... .... ), and having newb gamers would help ensure a high quality of RPing on Arm. I have also noticed with some of my non-gamer friends that if you mention gaming, they suddenly perk up with interest, but if you start rambling about this cool MUD, their brain instantly shuts off; so why not use gaming as a lead-in to Arm? If they want to roleplay, but you don't have room in your campaign, mention Arm. The other big thing that might help is a practice area for newbs. I am not really all that computer literate, and had to literally be *trained* by a friend on how to play Arm. I love it to death, but nearly gave-up on it right away, 'cause it was very frustrating to learn. Within seconds of logging on for the first time I was nearly hyper-ventilating, freaking out to my friend, (who incidentally I even called on my cell, that's how panicked I was), because I couldn't figure out how to WALK with my char. I think a good way to attract and keep newbs might be to create a few rooms of "practice" area where people could get used to the commands and figure out how to walk, talk to another char, look at things and emote properly. I was embarrassed my first time logging on, because I wanted to roleplay well so desperately, but I just didn't understand the commands well enough to be able to do so. One last thing that I would suggest is a list of all the commands on a single page, (or at least the basic ones, so people can function decently in game), what they do, how they work, and examples of how to use them. If something like this already exists, please pardon me for being a dumb-ass, and let me know where it's at for future reference.

[Savak]

It's kinda defeatist.  "You can't make a well-designed game, because if it's well-designed, newbies won't like it, so nobody will play."  Oddly, his most substantial "evidence" is based on "surveys" of players of (let's face it) very similar graphical massive-multiplays.  Further, he seems to base "success" of a game on the number of players they have.

The failure is in lumping all players and potential players into the same group, and not recognizing the value of catering to a niche.

Among other things.

-Savak

[Anonymous]

I think it was an interesting article.  You can't take it literally because, like most good rhetoric, it takes it's argument to extremes.  Games do live and die by how players experience their first 30 min of gameplay.  Newbies do quit over the lack of specific features (check out sosaria's question about ansi color) and nearly all players do view gameplay changes based on the short term effects on their characters (ie Armadict's reaction to the new policy changes.  I'm guilty of that too I wanted to start a clan in future, so I thought that change sucked, heh).

Of course, alot of what Arm does is the exception which proves the rule.  Lots and lots of short term bad, long term good features (permadeath, character applications, karma, no skill percentages etc).  But we're a text mud and text muds are for the purests anyways.

He did say that advertising is one way to get around the effects he's mentioned.  And telling people how the mud is sufficiently different from other games they have played that they don't fall back on asking for global channels or whatnot.  It's something to keep in mind, I think.

[skeetdaddle]

Savak said:

Further, he seems to base "success" of a game on the number of players they have.

I like this statement and I don't. I think it makes a really good point of noting that a smaller world doesn't need 10,000+ players to be a success. I know there are some online roleplaying games out there that have player bases close to that size, but honestly if Arm actually had that many players, I think it would feel awfully crowded. I think that the success of a game, however, does have something to do with the size of its player base, but only in respect to what the game is built for. I would love to see a larger player base on Arm, but 10,000 would be too many. The judgement should be made on how close the size of the player base comes to the game's max occupancy, (max occupancy being based not on how many can be playing at once, but how many can play before it's too crowded and no fun anymore.) Otherwise it's not really a valid comparison.

[My 2 sids]

Even with my limited MUD and role-play experience I'd say this article actually applies a great deal to us; perhaps that's why so many are trying to discard it so quickly.  Fact is, he's absolutely correct.  

Point #1: Virtual worlds live or die by their ability to attract newbies

This isn't about numbers; it's about the natural flow of player basses.  People leave or take breaks and that means we need to get others in here.  We need new players.  Not just to keep the game alive or up the population but to keep fresh and new ideas coming in.  Not just accepting new players but actually wanting them and trying to attract and welcome them.

Point #2: Newbies won't play a virtual world that has a major feature they don't like.

I think he's using text-based games not as something that is out of date but as an example of how newbies can overlook a game because of something they instantly don't like.  How many of us are just now realizing how detailed the world is?  How many of us didn't start truly reading room descriptions or clothing descriptions until at least our second character?  Let's face it, Armageddon is an acquired taste; people can judge that to be good or bad, just know that it does cost us newbies.

Point #3: Players judge all virtual worlds as a reflection of the one they first got into.

When Arm elitists go around bashing other MUDs by saying no one but idiots would ever play this sort of thing.  Or that simplistic hack-n-slash games are only for simplistic people we really isolate a lot of potential new players by essentially saying the potential newbie is dumb or lacking because they enjoyed role-play before they came to Armageddon.

Point #4: Many players will think some poor design choices are good.

This is just too easy to respond to.  Look around!  Armers hate change, why do you think people bitch and moan so much on the GDB?  Players either don't like new changes because they can't instantly see why it's good. (A three-month trial of no special orders and it's like the end of the world)  Or, they don't like change so they will try to keep things the way they always have been. ("Well I didn't have help when I was a newbie so all new newbies should have a hard of time as I did.")