Game Design Rant ("What is an MMO" and "Chekov's Gun is Bad")

Hello, I don't usually browse reddit (at least not that often). But I do very much enjoy studying or looking at game design. I don't have any professional experience, unfortunately, so chances are alot of what I'm gonna say here is going to probably come off as (or even literally be) naive or dumb or stupid or unlearned or whatever.

To be frank, the best case scenario for me is that someone says "Yeah, duh, everyone knows this" or "Isn't that obvious?" because validation. But, having pushback and criticism of my ideas is also a good outcome as that will afford me to the chance to actually critically investigate the conclusions I've come to and ideas I've formed- hopefully with the ability to then improve upon them and end up with an overall better understanding.

So, if you read this and think that I'm really stupid or dumb or wrong or whatever, I encourage you; nay I beg you to post why you think this way so I can better understand where I have gone wrong. If nothing else, it will greatly aid in the articulation of my ideas (as I see a very high likelihood that there will be misunderstandings of what I am trying to say due strictly to a lack of professional experience, lack of terminology, or otherwise just being bad at writing in general).

That said, here is the aforementioned Rant- https://docs.google.com/document/d/10Y2GfiL_nf3tt8Yda1vp1kQMH0Govku0rkIQpKfJWq8/edit?usp=sharing

It's a bit long, so that's the google doc for it. I'll also copy paste the whole thing below for those who don't feel like adding another tab to their internet keyring. And again, if ya think me dumb or wrong- post such and back up your claim!

Damned near everyone I’ve spoken with mistakes what being an MMO is. They see RPG elements, or wire-thin frameworks for social interaction and go "MMO!"

When in reality it takes so much more to make something an MMO.

The best way I've found to isolate what qualities/traits make an MMO is to first understand that MMO as a genre acts as a sort of "Prefix". It's an additive descriptor to some other "base" genre.

WoW, for example, is an MMORPG. Planetside is an MMOFPS. EVE Online is an MMO Space Simulator although EVE's base genre is difficult to classify, due to the extreme uniqueness in its gameplay. "Simulator" is used very loosely here, as its rendition of physics is very much not quite "true". It even has in-game reasons to support the unrealistic physics, with handwavey technology.

As with most things, the best way to isolate Qualities is to compare two similar things and play a game of spot the difference. Of course, it's not so simple as "Everything different between X and X is a necessary quality of Y". It's important to sit down and think things through, to isolate the mechanics themselves amongst themselves and categorize them in a way that allows sorting/organization. To truly study how the different aspects and mechanics interact with one another, to see why it is they produce the "effect" of "MMO"ness

The first hurdle is easily overcome when comparing the two wildly different base genres of RPG and FPS. Comparing between Planetside and WoW (especially Planetside 1, as 2 incorporates several RPG elements) makes it very easy to identify which parts of each game are merely a component of the "base genre", and not at all a part of their being an MMO

RPG elements including playable named characters (Whether the names are Fixed, as in games like Borderlands which is an FPSRPG, or chosen by the player as in most games nowadays), inventories (whether the game includes/demands inventory management or not), progression systems such as leveling or talents, etc. FPS elements of course demand the "First-person" camera perspective, and an emphasis on "Gunplay" (though non-firearm ranged weapons are acceptable). Mobility/Movement is often centerpoint even if the mobility itself is heavily limited. Many shooters tack on a variety of other things, but a larger overarching comparison of shooters can readily identify the base elements which they all share and are ultimately mandatory to the classification.

Another thing to remember is that not all features of a game are categorizable by genre. Many games have a slough of unique mechanics, or mechanics that are shared between genres and are functionally "genre-less". This is in fact where the term MMO comes in. As you begin to categorize the qualities of games, and contrast these two in particular, you rapidly come to a conclusion which in some way mirrors the concept of "Sub-Genres". In other words, a second set of "genres" which are not mutually exclusive with the original set of genres. IE, you can combine them in a single game with no issues. In fact, the genre of "RPG" is a sub-genre for this very reason- as many recent games have shown that RPG elements can often be incorporated into just about anything. Other attempts to "combine" genres have often failed to do so, with the closest being the "RTSFPS" games such as Natural Selection and Nuclear Dawn, which end up just creating two different games that are played alongside one another but never simultaneously by the same player.

The primary divide which defines a given set of qualities as being a "Main" or "Base" genre or a "Sub-genre" is whether or not those qualities are tied to the Core Gameplay Loop. Or the boiled down description of what the players do in the game. As, generally speaking, it is not possible to be in two places at once or take two radically different actions simultaneously (though skilled individuals may be able to do one thing in one hand and another thing in the other, neither point of control can do two things at once), qualities which are tied to the Core Gameplay Loop are ones which belong to "Base" genres such as FPS, TPS, RTS, 4X, Narrative/Comic, etc.

As a result, "Base" genres are mutually exclusive. While a game might be split between its "FPS" and "RTS" sides, it is never both at the same time.

Subgenres however are not. Just about any game can have RPG elements mixed in, or Strategy elements, or yes MMO elements. Thus we come to the next point of contention- the difference between having elements of a genre and being that genre.

This is best described by examining the relationship between Roguelike and Roguelight games.

As those subgenres are themselves defined by how similar the game is to the one which pioneered the genre- Rogue. A Roguelight game has elements which resemble those of Rogue, but a Roguelike game is often a very close mirror. In this particular case, the difference is often whether or not there exists a "Meta" progression outside of the core loop which is permanent and shared between runs. Noita is Roguelike because every single new run is the same as all others- nothing you do in any run will ever have an effect on what you do in any other. Hades is Roguelite because the game has a very strong and prominent meta-progression that makes each run easier than the last, slowly gaining new tools, new options, or unlocking new possibilities when the map is generated.

As a result, a game possessing elements of a subgenre does not make that game classifiable as that genre unless it possesses a very large number (or all) of said elements. If there are too few, it either has no classification or demands a new one entirely (as was the case for Roguelite games)

To Recap before moving on-

1. Genres are split between "Base" genres which are mutually exclusive with one another and can not simultaneously exist and "Sub" genres which are not mutually exclusive and can often be mixed and matched with other genres fairly freely.

2. Not all characteristics/qualities of a game can be categorized as belonging to some genre- the vast majority of games possess a variety of unique elements which are shared by few, if any, other games.

3. The best way to identify genre-defining elements of a game is to compare it to another, similar game and find what parts of them are different. Followed by then determining which elements are or are not categorizable (typically by then comparing to yet more, not-so-similar games to see if those elements are shared or common- IE finding the similarities instead of the differences)

Now we come to the really hard part. What elements classify a game as an MMO? We'll start with some of the easy stuff. Right off the bat, social interaction is clearly a huge part of the genre. Just about every single MMO in existence heavily emphasizes some form of social interaction. Guilds, clan, corporations, whatever the term- MMOs place a huge focus on cooperation between large numbers of players towards common goals. To this end, MMOs often also include a variety of other socially-oriented elements. Such as extensive cosmetic options (sometimes wrapped up in a looting or rarity system, to produce visually immediate prestige or value by way of being rare or difficult to get), active Marketplaces for the trading of game-items (if the MMO in question even possesses items, that is), and more. Some of the above social elements, however, are also shared by other games which are not MMOs. Most notably, a great deal of modern games include friends lists or other forms of tracking social connection. Many non-MMOs also have Groups and clans, or even active marketplaces (CS:GO and a great deal of other steam-supported games, for example).

Thus, although such things are necessary for the survival and success of an MMO- they are not genre-defining. Possessing them does not make the game an MMO, but being an MMO does mean that the game should possess them- if it does not, then odds are it won't be successful.

Right off the bat you can identify games which possess these elements, and begin to question whether or not they are actually MMOs. Warframe and Destiny are often the biggest gray areas. They have these elements, but as established, having them can not be used as justification for them being MMOs. If they are to be classified as MMOs, there must be some other element which identifies them as such.

So now we come to the hard part. If those social elements aren't what defines an MMO, then what does? The common argument is the acronym itself. "Massively Multiplayer Online", but all too often individuals will (ironically or otherwise) say that games like Call of Duty are MMOs because they are technically "Online" games that are "Multiplayer" and have "Massive" playerbases.

But when one really digs into the Acronym, you begin to realize certain things: First off, the obvious counter to the Smartass's argument, is that it needs to be all of those things Simultaneously. "Massively" and "Multiplayer" are modifying the word Online, as per standard grammatical rules. Therefore, the online component of the game itself must be "Massively Multiplayer". Then comes in the real contention that is so difficult to truly pin down. At what point is a game's multiplayer "Massive". Is it 10 people? Probably not. 30 people? Maybe. 100 people? 1000? Does the game need to have all of that at once? Or does them technically being "on the same map" count- even if they are not rendered on one another’s screens or able to interact? Is Battlefield an MMO?

According to conclusion 3, the best way to identify genre-defining elements is via Comparison. So let's do that! We'll compare World of Warcraft and Planetside 2. Right away we're going to ignore these games' social elements as explained above, such things while important are not strictly necessary to be defined as an MMO, and their exclusive base-genres (FPS and Third-Person RPG). We know at a baseline that World of Warcraft and Planetside 2 are MMOs. There is no contention whatsoever by any parties on this point, and if anyone ever did chances are the sum total of all gaming-informed individuals would laugh them out of the room. So they make for an excellent subject of study as reliable baselines.

One thing that both these games have in common that hasn't already been eliminated as genre-defining or a part of a different classification is an Open World. That is, they have very large maps which are persistent and interconnected such that one can travel from any one part of "The world" to any other using only "In-game" elements, typically physical travel either on foot or with vehicles (as opposed to UI-based teleportation, though both games do include those for convenience). The trouble is that we can eliminate this element too. Many games, including a wide variety of single player games, also include an Open World! Therefore, just as with the social elements, having an Open World may be very important- or even outright mandatory- for an MMO. But it is not genre-defining, and cannot be used to classify the game as such.

So what then? Well, there is just- singly and only- one other thing these games share. And it's pretty narrow in scope. These games can also support (though it rarely, if ever, actually happens) every single player on a given server being in the same place at the same time- with all players rendering and being able to interact with all other players in that same place at the same time. There is, in other words, Absolute Multiplayer Persistence. If any two players on a given server go to the same spot in the game world, it is an absolute Guarantee that they will see each other there- and be able to interact. In many ways mirroring reality itself, you will always see everyone else that is around you (assuming they aren't hiding), and whether you want it or not, they are a part of the world in which you live.

But there is another problem. Layering. Also sometimes referred to as instancing or sharding, and something which the retail version of World of Warcraft uses extensively but not Planetside 2 (at least not in the core game world). This is a form of micro-server management, designed to reduce both individual server load and the graphical load on a given client's machine when there are large numbers of players. As having every single other person on a server in the same spot at the same time will typically cause any modern gaming computer to melt, light on fire, and/or explode. Or just lag out and crash (the markedly less interesting outcome). This means that in the retail version of World of Warcraft (but not the Classic version currently available, nor the original incarnations of the game before the Cataclysm expansion) if two players on the same server go to the same spot they are not guaranteed to see one another. For various reasons, the game can place them on different "layers" to reduce server load. Where does that leave us, then? There simply are no other relevant similarities between the games. There is nothing else for us to isolate, at least nothing that cannot also be eliminated as genre-defining. Well, there is another comparison we can make.

EVE Online is also an MMO, afterall. As are games like Guild Wars, Rift, Elder Scrolls Online, etc. Of them, however, the most informative is the comparison to EVE Online which is often regarded as possessing one of the most powerful servers of any game company on the planet. So much so that some governments have asked them for advice on their server architecture. EVE Online also, much like Planetside 2, does not utilize Layering. Furthermore, it also has only one server. This means that if any two people on the planet with an EVE account boot up the main game (and not the test environment) and go to the same solar system, they will see each other in the "local" chat. They can go to the same gate, same planet, or same any other point in the entire system and they will see each other. This is universally true for the entire game world. Just like Planetside 2, just like the older versions of WoW and other original MMOs.

So is that it, then? Is that the clinch? Is the key, genre-defining aspect of MMOs having a Persistent Open-World in which any two players on the same server can be "forced" into interaction should they go to the same spot?

I would say yes, that is the key aspect, the one thing that must be absolutely true in order for a game to be classified as an MMO. Purely because there are no other options. There are no other mechanics, elements, qualities, or otherwise which all MMOs share that can not be eliminated as genre-defining by way of other non-MMOs also possessing those qualities (lest we do something crazy like calling CSGO an MMO. Which is tantamount to throwing away the genre entirely- it would lose all meaning and becoming irrelevant as a term).

Does that mean the retail version of World of Warcraft is not an MMO? What about Warframe? It certainly does not possess an Open World, let alone a persistent one. What about Destiny? It has fairly large maps, but are they persistent? You can't "travel" to them- you have to use the game UI to effectively teleport to them.

This is where we come to the conclusions-

1. The retail version of World of Warcraft is an MMO. Layering technology is not often used in excess. That is, it only happens when there are more players in an area than can be reasonably handled by any one machine, and if there aren’t then two players on the same server in the same spot will see one another. MMOs which do have all layers active- such as Lost Ark- also allow their players to choose which layer they are on at any given time, and disallows the transfer when it is full. This is functionally identical to a traditional server system, simply allowing on-the-fly switches between servers as mechanical needs demand. Far and away, the Layering system Lost Ark utilizes is the single best solution to the performance problem of MMOs. It essentially allows players to "travel" to different layers in a world, meaning that the layer you select is also a part of the "point" to which you are traveling. Thus allowing preservation of absolute multiplayer persistence and reasonable performance.

2. Warframe is not an MMO. You can not "travel" anywhere, it is all handled via teleportation. The Core gameplay of the game only allows for up to 4 players (and when they tried to go higher, their game broke and they simply stopped trying instead of improving their optimization). The maps are not persistent, they are randomly generated and cease to exist once the player leaves. There are "hub" areas players can teleport to, and the game does allow you to select which layer you go to- generating them on the fly as player numbers increase. However, they are not often used for anything beyond the pure mechanical requirements they impose (Needing to speak to a certain NPC to exchange currencies, improve rep, etc.). It is rare to an extreme for players in these areas to interact in any meaningful way, despite DEs best attempts to force them to.

3. Destiny 2 has the same issues as warframe. Although its maps are fixed and persistent, they are instanced/layered to an extreme and allow no ability for the players to congregate and interact- at times simply placing them randomly in their own personal instance which will rarely include one or two other players. Even then, those open world areas are almost never used or played in, as the brunt of the game occurs in instanced "dungeons" or PvP maps which only ever have a handful of randomly selected players. Or, at best, a team of 6 friends who got together to do a Raid. Its Hub area has the same issue as Warframe's, though the community in general does occasionally do fun things when they run into people via emotes and the hub area minigames. Destiny 2 also forces UI teleportation when going pretty much anywhere.

But why is this the defining aspect of the MMO? As stated earlier, although other games possess them as well, all MMOs possess extensive social interaction support. This is because the core of what an MMO is is not really definable as a single gameplay element. Although an Open World with absolute persistent multiplayer interaction is required, in order for an MMO to truly succeed it needs to support social interaction between large groups of people. That is what truly makes an MMO. It's not just a game. It's a game world, and while a world may include a wide variety of NPCs, monsters, zones, iconic landmarks, etc. The thing which truly makes the world of an MMO special and unique is the fact that they are filled with people. That the world is occupied, and lived in by other players. It's essentially an entire other, actual world.

Nothing is more important to an MMO than the feeling of "Worldliness" that comes from the combination of game elements such as a Persistent Open-World, Large maps, Large player counts, extensive social mechanics, etc. This is what makes them so tricky to make. It's not as easy as slapping together a few mechanics and calling it a game. You have to carefully design and articulate the entire game to protect and produce the World Experience. If the player does not feel as though they are in a world with other players, then they may as well not be- and in truth they aren’t. Because games are at the end of the day a simulation and not real.

So a good game is the same as a good simulation of whatever the game is trying to simulate, whether it's a sport, an arcade game, a historical experience or retelling, a storybook, or whatever. The thing that an MMO is trying to simulate is a living, breathing world populated by people. And of all things, that is perhaps the single most difficult task humanity has ever come up with to do. Creating the experience of an entirely different, entire universe with its own rules and qualities.

To this then, there are a number of potholes that should be avoided, or if unavoidable, reduced as much as possible.

--An abundance of Loading screens detracts from the experience, though most people can ignore them so long as the areas between loads feel interconnected.

--What is absolutely impermissible however is sole reliance on UI teleportation. That is, if the only way to get to a location is to essentially teleport there by navigating through a menu and pressing a button. There is no faster way to break the immersion of the player. It immediately signals that this "location" isn't real, that it's not really a part of the "world". It's just some "side area" that exists outside of everything else. And although this is, in technical terms, the truth when it comes to all video games. It is again the experience and the feeling that matters most. Games are an artform. The experience is the only thing that matters. This is why even a game as practical, pragmatic, and dry as EVE Online manages seemingly effortlessly to preserve the immersion and sense of its game world. Because everything is so interconnected, because place and location matters so heavily, so extremely to everything. It doesn't matter if every bubble of space is independently hosted on a different server. The game so easily merges and unmerges them as players get "close to each other", that for all intents and purposes the mechanical truth is irrelevant. To the players, they really are in the same solar system, orbiting the same star. There really is a station over there, with dozens of people floating outside of it ready to warp over and kill you should you dare to uncloak.

--Another major detractor is nearly any form of random generation- psuedo or otherwise- when creating map areas. Nothing makes a place feel more irrelevant or worthless than the fact that once you leave, it literally ceases to exist entirely. You can never go back- no one can at all ever. Nothing would convince you that you live in a computer simulation faster than if your home physically disappeared as soon as you stepped out of it, or if a menu screen overtook your vision telling you that your workplace is “being generated”.

An acceptable form of "random generation" is when it is guided extensively by rules that ensure consistent placement of objects. If there is a "Ship" that is technically generated every time you enter it, but the number of rooms is always the same, the order of placement is always the same, the shape and size of the rooms always the same, etc.; if the only real difference is which doors to which rooms are open or closed, or which vents have destructible grating, or how many chests there are around, or how many or what type of enemies have spawned, then it will feel like a "Real" ship. Because it will be consistent, if nothing else this fact would establish that the factions in this world do have actual blueprints and designs that they use. That these ships are real and make sense, that they are deliberately constructed with a specific purpose in mind. It could represent a state of decay- or repair. Perhaps what you did the last time you were there affects how it looks this time around, changing which doors the "enemy" decided to lock or unlock, which rooms are devastated beyond repair, or which items still remain. Destiny 2 used to do this with its Strikes (what would be dungeons in other games), where sometimes different enemies or factions would spawn. This mechanic did wonders for the immersive experience, and spiked the replayability and general community enjoyment of the strikes which featured this. Unfortunately they more or less dropped it and most of their newer stuff does not do this anymore, let alone expand upon the concept.

Warframe, in particular, believed that its pseudo-random generation system using tilesets improved the replayability of its game. When in reality it actually made it more boring, because the impersistent nature of the maps detracted from their value and made things like the order of tiles completely irrelevant. To the players of Warframe, the maps are just a series of hallways to rapidly jump through at high speed and nothing more. Details are aesthetic at best, ignored more often than not. A pretty scene to look at, perhaps, but nothing really worth caring about. It doesn't matter if the map is technically not the same shape every time, because that has no real effect whatsoever on the gameplay beyond how long it takes to get to the end. Their system doesn't even really allow for extensive or realistic intersections- and can often result in rooms which are facing "open space" being oriented directly towards a room that is clearly not. Why would anyone care about somewhere that doesn’t exist, and that goes away once you leave- never to return?

If Warframe used their generation system to produce maps, and then went in and manually adjusted the maps. Adding details, altering how they’re generated, creating persistence between them (or at least between maps on the same node in the game’s star chart), such that every run on a given node has the same “map”- just with different routes through it due to locked doors, destroyed rooms, etc.; then the game would have taken a huge and extremely important step towards evolving into a true MMO. As it stands, however, Warframe is just a third-person lobby shooter with a Marketplace and player housing.

---Part 2: Chekov’s Gun---

I hate Chekov's Gun. Some have heard this rant from me personally before, but from a writing standpoint Chekov's gun is the death of worldbuilding. The idea that everything is "intended" or "meant" to be used has essentially given rise to a design philosophy for video games (or any designed narrative, for that matter) where there is no such thing as secrets or mystery. If you see something- it's relevant, it matters, and that is a safe assumption that can always be made in a story where Chekov's Gun is a guiding principle. This makes it extraordinarily difficult to create surprises or plot twists, or anything approximating a true mystery. In other words- it makes it impossible to make the world of a story feel real. The world has plenty of irrelevant shit in it, plenty of stuff that isn't there "because" of anything or "for" any purpose- at least not narratively, if deterministically (trees are there because laws of physics and biology and whatnot). The reason stuff is there is because the world exists, and has rules and functions and conditions. In a story, things can and should be there for no reason other than to give the audience information about the nature of that world. You describe trees and life to indicate that the world is natural and bountiful, you describe the buildings in a city because it's a real city and it would have those buildings and just saying that they're there and look that way indicates to the audience that this is the case; even if only subconsciously. It enhances the feel of the world, and makes it seem realistic even if the audience isn't consciously aware of why it feels that way.

From a game design standpoint, the consequence of Chekov's Gun is that there is no such thing as "risk" in a video game designed under it. If you see something, and you are at all capable of interacting with it, then not only are you meant to be able to, you are intended to and should interact with it at that moment as soon as you possibly can. In other words, players don't have to think about the game world. They can very easily just point themselves in the direction of anything that is at all interactable and get through the game, without ever actually needing to pay attention- and since they do not need to, chances are they won't. This eliminates the feel of the world- turns it from a lived in place to little more than a flat and 2-dimensional backdrop on which the game's mechanics are plastered.

Games that have good worldbuilding unilaterally ignore Chekov's gun, and include plenty of stuff that isn't really meant to be interacted with in a particular way at a particular time- let alone the moment it is encountered. This isn't just something that visually appears but can't be interacted with- it is things that can be but probably shouldn't because it would likely result in the player's death or otherwise act as some kind of indirect gate or blocker to progress. In MMOs, such as WoW, this would be enemies in a particular region that are too high level to be fought. They are there and you can go to them- but you shouldn't. Or NPCs whose quests you can take, but which are far too high level to be done at that moment- they're there and you can attempt them, but shouldn't. They're not there because the player is meant to do them, they're there because they would be there. Because the rules of the world and how the world works dictate that this thing be there at that point in time, and it being interactable means that it isn't a scripted narrative event that vanishes the moment the player looks away (even if, mechanistically, that is true; but the topic of "persistence" in video games is different; see part 1).

In other words- they are a vital component for telling the story of the world. The value they have is that by their mere existence, they tell the audience about the world at large and thus add to its depth and complexity and make for a more interesting world. In a book or movie this would be something that appears once and then never again (or only whenever the attention is directed that way)- it's the random patrons of the Cantina, the patrol of stormtroopers that didn't find the droid they're looking for, the people walking by on the street or standing in line in the background of any scene at a coffee shop. None of these details are "relevant" to the "narrative", but they are relevant because they are the world itself. For the purpose of dropping secrets, bombs, or twists, these details are informational clutter that can throw off the scent. Little things people might pick up on and assign too much value to (especially if they're from a background where a principle like Chekov's Gun is so prevalent), thus making the truth bomb dropped later hit that much harder. It forces the audience to think about not just the world, but the narrative- because now they have to actually pay attention in order to correctly deduce which details are the relevant ones and which ones are just consequences of the natural world.

Chekov’s gun, in short, eliminates the use of Red Herrings in storytelling- which is just not good game or writing design; even if it is good financial advice.