RPGs just aren't Role-Playing Games any more...

As promised in my previous post, I'm posting an updated vision of what the future holds for MMO players (you can see my original thoughts in my 'thoughts on Blizzard's next-gen MMO' post from over a year back). Firstly, it's probably important to discuss what I think is wrong with the current MMORPG model and why it'll become increasingly defunct in the future.

The problem is an inherent lack of skill-based gameplay. If you think about it, current FPS games are all about twitch, using your reflexes to line your weapon up with the most vulnerable parts (usually the head) of your opponent and firing at it. Also, you can use the scenery to your advantage by hiding, so when you do open fire on your enemy they'll have less chance to fire back and kill you before you kill them. This is not an overly advanced mechanic, but it's equally simple for everyone and so a jumped-up test of reflexes can actually become very engrossing.

A RTS is another genre of game that is very skillful - much like chess, you maneuver your pieces into a position where they can defeat a similarly-armed opponent by skillful use of tactics and battlefield positioning. An RPG, on the other hand, is not exactly a game that lends itself to skillful online competition. It is perfectly understandable why they were the first genre to go Massively Multiplayer, but the same things that made them the logical choice as pioneers of the genre also make them a poor choice to continue it.

Q. What's the difference between Italians and toast? A. You can make soldiers out of toast. Aha ha.

The key's actually in the name, Role-Playing Game. Everquest was heavily influenced by MUDs and Dungeons and Dragons, and it played on the social role of people wanting to adventure together. This was a good move, because the persistent characters and large world were perfectly suited to attracting those accustomed to D&D. It's understandable why it did so well - the target audience wanted to meet up with other people, and explore a world and vanquish some monstrous foes together. The game fitted the niche perfectly.

Of course, the genre has evolved a considerable amount since EQ was released (I'll leave out the pioneering contribution of games like Ultima Online for brevity's sake), most notable with the release of the monolithic World of Warcraft that still dominates the genre today. What WoW did is bust the genre wide open, attracting a huge range of fans that would never have played EQ or UO or Asheron's Call. And that's the problem.

The older games were aimed at role-players and people who were primarily interested in the world of the game, generally in a non-competitive way. Remember, you can't powergame in D&D - there's just no point. Now, of course I'm not trying to claim that min/maxing and powergaming are new to WoW and never existed in the likes of EQ1, but they were certainly less prolific. As a predominantly PvE game with a difficulty curve so high you needed crampons to climb it, most of the enjoyment of EQ was fighting your way to the max level, because it was a genuine achievement.

The WoW-generation of MMOs has changed this. In appealing to an audience of more mainstream players, Blizzard sanitised the world and made it much less punishing and much more logical. It's no longer a place to explore, it's a place to level up in. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just that it is a different thing. The game is no longer about the world, it is about the player. But as it becomes more and more about the player, the relevence of the world decreases and the role-playing element of the game goes with it. Few people have any real empathy with their race or class in WoW, for example, or find any of the quests particularly interesting beyond the rewards and experience they yield. And when things like that happen, the 'Role-Playing' element is gone. Leaving you only with a 'Game'.

If you think about it, WoW is more of an adventure game than it is an RPG. It's just a more persistent and customisable version of Diablo II, with a few added bells and whistles. And what's wrong with that? Well, Diablo II wasn't the most skillful game in the world. You levelled your character up and found better gear, and that was that. Enjoyable, briefly, but not a model to build a long-lasting game on. World of Warcraft is on a much larger scale and so sustains the interest for longer, but the weak combat mechanics at its heart still hold it back just as they hold back all of the other MMORPGs on the market.

EQ had the same weak combat mechanics (weaker, in fact), but then it also had the role-playing element to support it. WoW is much more centred around PvP rather than PvE and exploring, so combat is that much more important in its world - and this highlights its weakness in the area. Additionally, the focus on combat means that the game becomes a race to max-level, and once you've reached it there's really not much else to do except collect increasingly more powerful weapons and armour just because you feel you should. It also ironic how that the game relies so much on combat, when there's so little skill involved in it - it's largely down to stats and equipment unless there's a truly enormous gap in how experienced a player is with their chosen class.

And another part of the reason WoW has been so successful is the sheer novelty of it, as it's the first MMO many people have played. But in many ways WoW was the pinnacle of what an MMORPG can do, aside from the obvious (prettier graphics, bigger world, more classes etc), and you have to question whether people will want to play another very similar MMO after three years of WoW, even if it is prettier, bigger and has more classes. Warhammer Online looks like it's taking the only logical step forwards for MMORPGs by becoming far more PvP centred, but this is simply taking an even bigger step away from the Role Playing element of the old MMORPGs and heading towards the mainstream online games. In what way really is my avatar in WoW or in WAR going to be any different from the guy I control in Counterstrike or Battlefield 2, except for the fact he's a little more customisable? At the end of the day, he's not. I'm not role-playing any more, I'm just using him as a tool to fight other players.

Which makes me wonder why we're bothering using an RPG model at all. Think of your single-player RPGs, like Baldur's Gate or Fallout or Final Fantasy. You don't play those purely for the combat, do you? No. You play them for the story, for the world, for the experience. In them, the combat is a means to an end rather than a means in itself. It's the FPS and RTS game models that are based around combat in itself, and consequently the fighting in them is much more rewarding (and the story and world is generally much less enthralling). So, as MMORPGs become increasingly combat-based and less and less about role-playing, I think it's only a matter of time before the lightbulb switches on above someone's head and they think "You know, we're barking up the wrong tree here -let's make a truly persistent online FPS or RTS."

And once they do that, there won't be any going back.