1972: Pong smashes its way into the hearts of the up and coming digital age. It is the first of its kind: A video game. It began as a simple single-user interface. Man on computer. A battle of reflexes. It laid the groundwork for some serious new levels of competitive gameplay.
1998: Over several years, electronic experts and dreaming young visionaries congeal to form Atari's competitors: Nintendo, Namco, Taito, Konami, and even Sony. Soon young students are crowded around frenzied Dance Dance Revolution players and shouting target priorities at each other while reloading huge plastic virtual shooter guns.
Through all of gaming history, most of us can agree that most of the instant classics and time-proven favorites are exclusively single player and, as they evolved, two player co-op. It was all about Mario Bros. and Zelda. If you look closely at the rigid history of video games, it's the people that first used them as a means of competition. While it initially began as competition against the computer-driven adversary, most players only did it to leave behind that iconic three letter signature on a high score screen. Even though words like Epeen weren't floating through the easily conquered teenage vocabulary palette, the seeds had already been planted.
Now, in the age of e-gamer society and massive annual competitions, we see titles like Starcraft and Halo reaching immortal heights in the hearts of their respective fans. These types of games focus heavily on multiplayer battles, and they've been the pioneers in a new wave of strict e-gaming societies. I personally attribute the rise of competitive gaming to two things. One is that logically, after game developers have mastered game content and mechanics, they try pitting those mechanics against themselves. Everyone wants to play their favorite single player game at parties, right? The other half is the demand generated by the insecurities of the generation. It's much the same principle of bullying. People don't just want to win games, they want their victories flaunted over those who can't produce similar results. If you're good at something, why not be worshiped for it?
So why do I bring all this competitive spirit to question? Well because I feel it blinds most of the people playing games, specifically in MMOs. Competition is literally your only option during endgame. While PvP is obvious, PvE may need to be explained to those who haven't yet pulled back the mask of what PvE entails.
Once you've hit the level cap, and you've learned your class,(note the two are very separate things), it becomes a spreadsheet. Once you establish numbers, you do nothing but relentlessly smash your number against other players' numbers. Usually you can find a guild which is interested in the numbers you can produce. PvE is basically number-crunching; you calculate gear, stats, DPS, and rotations into the absolute maximum amount of output you can possible manage. Then, you use that raw output to score new batches of numbers, which you then use to manage that output further. In WoW, reforging takes prioritizing stats and minmaxxing to a whole new level. There are those players who 'raid for the content', but they aren't immune to the spreadsheet either. You have to spreadsheet to play endgame PvE.
The worst part of the spreadsheet endgame is that the graphics, the tidy mechanics, and the acute attention to details put into the game, are all ignored, and people tunnel-vision on securing their place among the gods. This also tends to cause huge rivalries and hostilities among people fighting the same bosses. This would be a good time to use the endless gearscore flamewars as a prime example. Or maybe the thousands of judgments made aloud based on arena team ratings. Don't forget the smugness of the players who use a mod you don't. Oh and how many times have you been kicked from a group because you were doing the fights correctly? The spreadsheet separates those who should be working together, and it devastates the social lives of many a player. PvE should always be about content first, gear later. So why not play a solo game? Well adding more players makes a game more interesting. Who doesn't want to form a party and take down big bosses? Arguably, adding players to a game scenario will always encourage competition, but there is a line to be drawn to prevent optimizing a number output to qualify for endgame. Only in retrospect do many players realize that they were watching their DPS meters more intently than the boss' next incoming spell, or where they're supposed to stack up. Plus, wit mods to do the little things for them, player get to focus more on competing amongst peers.
So while MMOs can be engaging and dramatic, endgame becomes a hard knock hassle. Sometimes once you lay it out you can see a lot more than while logged in. Kind of like when you realize that big white beard on Santa has a string keeping it from falling off his face. Sorry kids.
As to why MMO subscription profits are on the decline--it's simple: Most MMOs are clones. Each one brings little if any innovation to the market. There might change the setting. The UI may vary. Even a new spotlighted feature can lure in players, but the endgame leads to the same spreadsheet formulas. Some people like chocolate ice cream. Others enjoy a crisp vanilla. Some even enjoy a classy butter pecan. In the end, Ice cream is still only one dessert choice of many. Why settle for a frozen dairy treat when cake is an easily developed alternative?
I'll discuss what I look for in an MMO, and what a Utopian MMO looks like from my perspective next time.
