With expanding markets and ever-growing profit margins, why does it feel like massive multiplayer on-line role playing games are in decline?

Brad "Markup" Cole [Feedback]
November 26, 2001

At first, there were the big three: Ultima On-line, Asheron's Call, and Everquest formed a triumvirate of MMORPGs (massively multiplayer online role-playing games) that no sane company dared challenge. They split the market between them, and things were good -- for a time. Then complaints about a lack of support appeared, as did comments that the people in charge weren't listening to their customers. Other gamers spoke out about a lack of new features in these online games, but little changed. In some games, cheating ran rampant, with those in charge seeming to turn a blind eye to it. The triumvirate was content with how things were going, and didn't feel the need to heed the words of their player base.

Will new versions of Asheron's Call and Everquest be more of the same?

Then along came a new hope: Anarchy Online. With superior graphics and promises to do right what the other games had let go wrong, it stormed onto the scene and made itself known. While some new market share was created (this WAS the first MMORPG based in a futuristic/sci-fi setting), players swarmed in droves from the three previous champions and onto the servers of AO. The triumvirate was noticeably shaken -- their grip on power was slipping away because of this upstart -- and accelerated the coding of new versions of their own games. Still, after a few months had passed, players found their "new hope" to be more of the same: "camping" still dominated the game, bugs were ever-present, cheating was reported, and many people felt that customer service was non-existent. Waiting days to get in-game calls for help answered as well as a lack of message/e-mail responses will do that.

A feeling of "been there, done that" seems to be held by a growing number of players

And then, yet another challenger sprang up: Dark Age of Camelot. There were the same boasts of revolutionary game play that had accompanied the previous challenger, as well as improved graphics (over the triumvirate games, but not AO), better customer support, decreased camping, and other "improvements" in the genre too numerous to mention in a single article. Players once more flocked to the new game from the other established ones, and DAoC found itself to be the fifth major MMORPG. But, as had happened before, a few weeks of play revealed that DAoC was more of the same: camping, bugs, unheard appeals for in-game help (people waited WEEKS for responses to their appeals, only to lose their place in line when a new in-game help system was installed), and a feeling from many players that this was more of the same -- slightly improved, yes, but still more of the same.

Some have called this the "MMORPG Renaissance" -- that is, with such a large amount of competition and apparent variety of games, things just keep looking better and better. Multiplayer games are making more money than ever before, and the player base is constantly expanding. Shouldn't we then, as players, be rejoicing? Why are there still so many complaints?

A feeling of "been there, done that" even with the newest on-line games seems to be held by a growing number of players -- and, in my opinion, is deserved. Most of the popular on-line graphical RPGs seem to have the same "camp one spot until you level, then move on to the next" design, be it going from oasis to oasis in Anarchy Online or hunting the Hibernian parthanan farm in Dark Age of Camelot. Sure, recent games have added more "player versus player" and "realm versus realm" aspects to spice things up, but they are VERY limited and extremely level dominated. For instance, no matter what tactics a group of low-level characters employ, they will NEVER be able to take out a single moderately skilled high-level character in either DAoC or AO. The lack of customer support and a list of "promised but not implemented" features is also common to EVERY MMORPG, and in fact seems to be an industry standard rather than a flawed area that needs to be fixed. "Class types" are very recognizable from one game to another, with lingo like "pet classes" and "nukers" being almost universally understood in every game. Where is the innovation that was promised? Or, at the very least, a few new and brilliant ideas?

Massively multiplayer battle in Dark Age of Camelot

The reality is that five companies are putting out almost the exact same game with only minor differences in packaging and game play -- and making millions of dollars doing it. How is this, then, a renaissance in gaming? It is more like a dark age -- creativity and innovation are replaced by poor customer service and the recycling of the same basic ideas over and over again. The old triumvirate of power HAS been destroyed, but instead of increased variety, we're seeing a new trend of "jump from one game to the newest release, stay for a few months, then repeat the cycle when another MMORPG hits the market." With so few unique features in each game, there is no real reason for most players to stay. Sadly, Wolfpack Studio's soon to be released Shadowbane and Blizzard's World of Warcraft, while both promising new innovations, appear to be on the same track -- same basic game play, similar leveling systems, and just generally the same game we have seen before -- with a few new advances. While, as a player, I hope someone does come up with an interesting NEW MMORPG that doesn't borrow so heavily from the old ones, I'm not holding my breath.

Until then, I'll be playing the most recent "Call-of-Ultima-Camelot-Quest-Online" and wondering if things will ever really change.