It always intrigues me how we can take a simple little question and turn it into quite an argument. When it comes to MMO design what is content? Do any two people agree what content is? My guess is no but I am still going to take the opportunity to stand up and say what I think content is. We as an industry have gone far too long without clearly defining it and ensuring that the customer is best served. I will tell you what I think content is but first I’m going to tell you what it isn’t. As always, you’re more than welcome to disagree!
It seems that these days there are some MMO designers out there that are trying to pass certain things off as content to players. I can understand this practice as games tend to look better when they can claim that they are releasing “new content.” The key here is to understand that “something to do” does not always equate to content. Given that loose definition let’s talk about three things that are not content: alternate characters, hard mode and achievements.
This isn’t the first time that I’ve declared that alternate characters aren’t content. In taking this position I’ve often found myself at odds with other writers. Many seem to feel that a second character does constitute content. I simply cannot agree due to the nature of how MMOs work. If you play a second character of a different class your game play will change. You may even get to do a few different zones but, in most cases, your experience will largely be a repeat. The fact that your abilities are different and the class functions in an alternate way does not mean you’re going to have a unique trip down content lane. You’ll learn to play your new role pretty quickly and then find yourself in the same content as before. In essence you’re in a rerun that has been changed from black and white to color. I consider alternate characters about 3/10ths content these days. Some things feel different but little is new. I would hardly call that content. It is, however, better than the growing trend of “hard mode” dungeons.
Gamers and MMO players seem to like the hard mode option. I enjoy the fact that I can use this mechanic to keep the challenge of an old dungeon alive. That is important to note, though: I am still playing the old dungeon. Some hard mode content adds new mobs or tricks but a lot just change a metric on the spreadsheet from value x to value x+y. Contrary to what others may say, doing the latter is not new content. Making something harder just gives you something else to do. It isn’t new or different. You just repeat the same thing you’ve done with a higher number. I liken this to buying a CD that has three different mixes of the same song on it. You might enjoy that but not as much as if there were three unique and awesome songs on the album. At best this is 1/10th of a content unit.
Finally I want to touch on achievements. They are the new rage in gaming and have made their way into MMO design. Once more they are something that I enjoy but do not consider content. Achievements are just proof to the world that you did something. In an MMO I think this is absolutely wonderful! Every raid mob should have a dated one the first time you kill it so guilds that care about competition have clear evidence who has the “first” to do something. Adding them in retroactively, however, and forcing people to redo old content to achieve them is not content! Once more you’re asking players to do the same old content for a new treat. This is a zero on the content meter.
Now that I have pretty much suggested that everything new in gaming is not content and made myself sound like a grouch I suppose it is only fair that I explain what content is. I define it as something or someplace that is new or significantly different. In this generation of MMOs we’ve learned to accept the definition as “something else to do” and I think that really short changes players. A new zone with new monsters or taking an old zone and completely redoing it is content. These things expand upon the geography of the game and give players new options. I will even go so far as to say that adding in a few new monster models and sneaking them into old zones is content! Each of these items are a direct change or an addition to what exists. I view that as content.
Content is not just monsters and world size however. If you add an entirely new aspect of play to an MMO I would consider that content. Adding a mini-game focused trade skill that is different from all the others is an example. Allowing players to participate in different methods of play would also be content. Things like additional battlegrounds, auction houses, guild management systems are all valuable and content. Just because we cannot play something doesn’t mean it isn’t content. If it adds functionality without rehashing something we already do it meets the criteria.
To look at this in practice I’ll turn to WoW. One of the impressive things about World of Warcraft is that the Horde and Alliance have different quests, cities, lore and, to some degree zones. Playing through one side is quite a bit different than the other. These are all mechanics that give players different things to do without just having “more” to do. Leveling a Horde character will feel unique more often than repeated if you’ve only played Alliance. Obviously, however, you’ll get a mix of both, especially once you hit the expansions. At that point the “new” would wear off. I recognize that the distinction might be somewhat blurry but I think the message is there. Adding a slight change of perspective to things we’ve done hundreds of times just doesn’t enrich an MMO like true content does. Going forward I would like to see more true content and less “extra things to do” and I imagine I’m not alone in that!
All characters are © 2007 - 2012
You’re quickly going to get into a problem defining “new”. Changing a cosmetic feature is adding something new and provides more content? I think you’ve ruled that out AND said it is new content at different parts of this post.
What is the difference between a Starved Wolf that auto-attacks you and a Prowling Wolf that auto-attacks you? They’re both the same thing, just with slightly different stats and slightly different skins. There’s nothing new there. So more content is NPCs and mobs that are all clearly similar to past mobs and have no new mechanics associated with them? From the player’s perspective, there is less practical difference between a Starved Wolf and a Prowling Wolf than there is between a hard-mode boss and a normal-mode boss, yet you seem to think reskinning a creature and copying him to a different zone should be considering expanding content.
I don’t think the content question is worth answering. What is the result of having a good answer to this question? I’m sure developers will find the cheapest and least fulfilling way to give us a lot of the barest and least fun form of “content” however you choose to define content. And I’m sure we can continue nitpicking the definition until we’ve descended into complete obscurity and uselessness.
I think you’re putting words in my mouth with “yet you seem to think reskinning a creature and copying him to a different zone should be considering expanding content.” That is not what I said or suggested. Re-skinning and creating entirely new models is very different.
A red wolf that was once blue is not new and changing the size from 10 to 15 isn’t either. Creating an entirely new mob from the ground up, however, is. New models are appealing to players because they aren’t a rehash of something they’ve seen.
We ask these questions because it is fun and might make a difference. I recognize that 990 times out of 1000 it won’t but I’m willing to take the chance. Otherwise, why write at all? Why bother asking anything if we can just assume developers will say “Whatever” and do what they want.
I like to take a more optimistic outlook. In MMOs player opinions might not matter as much as they used to but they still do. Pressure and voting with our feet does matter. So I write about things I see as wrong.
We’re often being sold imitation content as real content and I I’m expressing my displeasure.
Reskinning and changing models are cosmetic changes that mean nothing for gameplay. I don’t understand the difference as far as “new content” goes. Content is new stuff to do. Killing a wolf or killing a raptor or killing a red wolf–no difference. Point out the distinction between reskinned and remodeled with regards to how that changes the length or quality of content. LotRO has a much smaller variety of monsters, yet I think it has better leveling content than WoW does. It reuses monsters frequently, but I don’t find myself thinking “this is not new content”. The look of the monster is a very small part of the role the monster plays in the game and how it contributes to content.
“We’re often being sold imitation content as real content and I I’m expressing my displeasure.”
That’s fine. I’m not telling you that you shouldn’t talk about it. You just haven’t done much of a job explaining what content actually is. Make a post about how content certain things aren’t content–that’s fine. I don’t see where you make an authoritative and useful statement about what content actually IS, though. I’d like to see that. You tell us what is obviously content–we already know that. Where this definition matters is along the edges. Let’s explore that in more detail. That’s what I was trying to do in my comment.
It could be the case that content is mostly a buzzword with no substantial meaning beyond the intuitive “stuff to do in a game”. An important distinction you seem to be making is between systems that motivate achievement and the systems that actually pose the challenges. Adding motivations isn’t adding content, to you, but adding a new platform for challenge is. Am I getting that right? (It’s surprisingly hard to express this sentiment.)
“LotRO has a much smaller variety of monsters, yet I think it has better leveling content than WoW does.”
This is just one of those things where I think we’ll disagree regardless. One of the original reasons I and my friends stopped playing LotRO was because of the lack of variety. Killing the same model from 1 to 50 felt bland. It is a key component. Variety, at least to me, is content in itself. Moving to a new zone isn’t enough. If you fill it with the same mobs it quickly feels dull. In that sense, new models are content to me.
I can say for me content isn’t just about having “things to do.” A hard mode is something else to do but you’re repeating a task. I believe the easiest way to define it in my eyes is variety of similar and dissimilar encounters. I say similar becomes obviously each zone will follow the same pattern. You find monsters there to kill and errands to achieve. The style of the zone, the difficulty of the quests, and the mob models can all vary greatly though so that even though the general premise is the same the zone feels different.
Taking a similar geography with a set of six models and using copy paste for each tier of 10 levels is something we could possibly agree is not content. There is no variety, no unique feeling and no flavor.
Content is very much a buzzword these days. It is how marketing tries to entice us. That was essentially my point. It once had meaning and by taking away the “false meanings” we might be able to take it back.
“Adding motivations isn’t adding content, to you, but adding a new platform for challenge is.”
No, that isn’t exactly what I mean. I’m not suggesting a play style slant here. A motivation to play can be wanting to see new architecture and models. That would be content. Making a new challenge, like a hard mode, is the exact opposite. That is harder, it is “something to do” but it isn’t real content. It is just reusing material. A better example of a new platform for challenge would be a new zone, with new models, unique rewards and different puzzles.
As much as I like alts to give myself a different spin on a game, I agree that they are not content. Relying on alts to extend playtime is bad form, in my opinion. Even my much-beloved “New Game +” feature typically doesn’t have much in the way of new content. (Chrono Trigger had new endings, Valkyrie Profile: Covenant of the Plume has some new battles and storylines, but the vast majority of *gameplay* and content is the same.)
Of course, this is all tangential to my notion that it’s OK to finish an MMO. Players really don’t need to be playing your game forever, and the lure of sweet, sweet subscription money is the root of a LOT of bad game design. If a player has a blast going through your content, and is happy to have paid what they did for it, MOVE ON already.
“Of course, this is all tangential to my notion that it’s OK to finish an MMO. Players really don’t need to be playing your game forever, and the lure of sweet, sweet subscription money is the root of a LOT of bad game design. If a player has a blast going through your content, and is happy to have paid what they did for it, MOVE ON already.”
I love this opinion Tesh. It is what we were talking about not long ago regarding expectations out of MMOs. Truthfully, isn’t it enough to buy the box and pay a sub two or three months and be done?
MMOs just don’t build the attachments like they used to. Guilds mean less, the items are easier to get and we don’t become as emotionally involved with our characters. Why try to force us to subscribe longer with artificial gates? I’ve been up against this a little bit lately with LotRO. Some of the grinds are just unnecessary. The game is amazing and doesn’t need to them to hold my attention. If anything they turn me off.
I definitely agree with the notion that hard modes and achievements are not content. WoW has many hard modes and the “hard mode” for one boss in particular is to kill him in less than 3 minutes. That’s not new content.
With alts, I agree and disagree. There are many different zones in Classic WoW that a player could potentially level up a character and never see or go through the quests in one zone. After leveling that character to max, they could make an alt and go through that zone. Technically that would be new content for that player.
I think this is an interesting question: what is content? Obviously from the exchange between evizaer and Ferrel above, there’s not necessarily a universal definition. I might take it a step further, echoing ab it of what evizaer wrote above: Is it really new content if you take the same A.I. and put a new model to it? Is fighting a raptor in Stranglethorn vale different than fighting a shoveltusk in Northrend at an appropriate level? Not really.
LotRO is interesting because a lot of people fault it for not having a wider variety of beasts. But, I think LotRO does a better job of differentiating between the different types of enemies. Fight wolves and you’ll have to deal with wounds and movement speed penalties. Barghests will silence you, which could be a pain if your healer gets caught. Orcs and Goblins are going to be a bit more difficult, they’ll bring friends and some will have ranged attacks. You start to get a feeling for what’s going to happen when you fight a particular enemy. Not that this has a huge impact on the game; I usually just get annoyed for a bit by the wolf’s speed debuff, or laugh when the barghest silences my melee fighter.
The problem from the developer point of view is that good content is hard and expensive. There’s a reason why Blizzard, despite making piles of money and being able to afford a dev team few other companies can, only come out with a patch with new raids once every several months. Slapping a new model (or just adjusting the color or size variable with an existing model) is easier and cheaper (no additional artist work). Adding things like “hard modes” and achievements are great because they’re pretty easy once you have the existing infrastructure. Sometimes these “easy to add” bits are the only real option for a smaller team that isn’t raking in millions of dollars per month.
Developers also have the eternal conflict of “fixing bugs” vs. “adding content”. Let’s face it, new content that isn’t just a simple rehashing of existing content is rarely bug-free when it’s released. Fixing bugs isn’t as high profile, but unless you do regular bug fixing the little annoyances add up and can cause serious problems down the line as the new bugs add to the woes. One of the things I disliked most about 3DO’s handling of Meridian 59 was that they prioritized content over bugs; sadly, the content wasn’t that spectacular to make up for having an increasingly buggy game.
So, what’s the best solution here? Not sure. Everyone knows that “more content is better”, but that’s not necessarily always true. Where is the threshold where content becomes meaningful enough to really extend the game? How do you strike the balance between all the different expectations? No easy answers here, I fear.
I have to say that LotRO has given me a passionate hatred for my favorite animal. The snare is quite annoying. You’re absolutely correct though when you talk about the flavor of the mobs. All wolves behave the same. I do enjoy that. I just want more variety.
You’re also pretty spot on about the pit fall of bad new content. Warhammer Online tried to gloss over some of its issues by just throwing more and more at the players. The foundation needs to be far more solid before you achieve anything new.
“Content is not just monsters and world size however. If you add an entirely new aspect of play to an MMO I would consider that content. Adding a mini-game focused trade skill that is different from all the others is an example. Allowing players to participate in different methods of play would also be content. Things like additional battlegrounds, auction houses, guild management systems are all valuable and content. Just because we cannot play something doesn’t mean it isn’t content. If it adds functionality without rehashing something we already do it meets the criteria.”
That paragraph is my favorite part of your article. I think what is missing from the content menu of most MMOs is more ways for the player to interact with the world. Just having more of the same whether it be monsters, classes, quests and lands is not the solution to freshening up an ever increasing stale and predictable genre.
Players need to have more freedom and autonomy in MMOs. As long as companies like Blizzard can distract us with “new content” in the form of an expansion the majority of players will not wake up from their glassy-eyed stupor and realize that the emperor has barely any clothes on.
As far as Lord of the Rings Online, killing boars, orcs and goblins over and over didn’t sit well with me. Tolkien purists, the draconian Tolkien Estate and ultimately the cowards at Turbine be damned because they destroyed the chance for a truly great MMO by being so rigid and inflexible with the so-called lore and limited bestiary.
When I read the Tolkien books I came away with the feeling that Middle-earth was a world of wonder, danger and magic. When I played LOTRO, I felt like a tourist roaming around the English countryside. Sadly that MMO never truly lived up to the greatness and feeling of what Middle-earth represented to me.