Massively-multiplayer online games.  They come in many forms and varieties, and there really isn't a solid consensus on what an MMO really is.  Is it a game that doesn't use instances or could a game like CrimeCraft qualify, despite it using lobby systems?  In the end, there is one thing developers need to remember about the foundational concept of MMOs... and that is they aren't supposed to end.

Video games traditionally follow a simple format of beginning, middle, and end.  Like most things, they conclude eventually.  However, the MMO genre breaks down those restrictions and allows for the story to be continued.  So why is it the stories in MMOs struggle to continue, evolve, and engage the players?  Developers.

Yes, the developers are the problem.  But, it isn't because they aren't working hard enough to develop updates or additional content.  Instead, it is because they've created an impossible scenario for themselves by creating a "game" and not a "world."  To help explain this concept, let me define the two terms.

A "game" is what you immediately think of when someone says the words "video game."  Games are designed by developers to lead the players through an experience.  Traditionally, this path they create is in the form of a story, written and developed by them for the players.

A "world" is also something designed by developers.  However, the key difference is that the developers don't create a path for the players.  This development style is comparable to the "watchmaker" theory, which reasons that God created the world, placed rules and restrictions on it, and then stepped back and let us do our thing.

Most MMORPGs like Star Trek Online, World of Warcraft, and Lord of the Rings Online were designed by developers using the "game" philosophy.  And, the success of these games have been mixed, but that isn't the issue here.

To better break this down, let's recall the main advantages MMOs have over other video games.

• Neverending story because of developer updates
• Players interact with the world, changing it based on their actions
• Persistent world never goes away, even when players aren't there
• Player interaction on a much larger scale

The biggest problem with the MMO "game" philosophy of development is that, as a developer, you are responsible for continuing the game's story for the players.  Moreover, there is typically only ONE story being told, although some MMO developers have successfully created variations of stories, based on what the player chooses to do, but these variations are very minor. 

In the end, the experience of one player in an MMORPG such as WoW, is almost identical to that of another by the time they finish the last bit of content created by the developers.  They talk to the same NPCs, receive the same quests, rescue the same princesses, kill the same raptors, etc.  This is what many MMO writers and critics refer to as the "everyone is the hero philosophy."

Suddenly, because developers are creating "games" instead of "worlds," they are faced with two very difficult problems:

• How do you make it so each player's story and path through your world is unique, while simultaneously making each player feel powerful, even when compared to each other?
• How do you develop your story fast enough to keep up with the speed at which the players will complete what you've already done?

The answer is that you can't do either, not with a "game" mentality that is.  No developer can create content fast enough to keep up with the most die-hard players.  No developer can create enough unique stories and paths to satisfy their gamers, either.  I'll give you an example.  If Blizzard wanted to create a unique experience, path, and story for each of its players in its next content update, it would have to somehow generate over 10 million unique stories.  Even if Blizzard had 100 writers on staff to develop these stories, working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year, writing at about 100 stories a month, with each story being about 10 hours worth of gameplay... well you get the idea.

What you've done is set yourself up for failure.  MMOs are supposed to be large, evolving worlds that never cease to exist, and where the story continues without end.  But, how can that actually happen when it relies on developers to continue it?

The alternative to this is for developers to create "worlds."  Instead of spending time creating NPCs, stories, dialogue, cinematics, and all the other content that goes along with developing a story, why not create in-game tools, rules, and player-interaction systems?  Build a living and breathing world that players must help create and evolve.

User-generated content has been a bit of a failed practice so far.  The reason?  Because it relies on users to create something that actually contributes to the game world.  And, in most cases where MMOs have experimented with this, such as City of Heroes, the user-generated content has existed separate from the world completely, which makes it relatively irrelevant to the bulk of the players.

In the case of building "worlds," user-generated content needs  to be relevant and practical.  Developers need to make sure the systems they created aren't being exploited to create things that ruin the experience, break the immersion, or create instability.  For example, developers could create a "shelter-building system," for the world.  This system would allow players to create shelters, whether it is shacks, homes, skyscrapers, etc., based on a set of requirements, qualifications, regulations, and interface options.  The developer would set the basics of the system, but allow it to be flexible so that it can also be affected by other systems, such an economic system.

Building a world also means eliminating most of the world's character NPCs.  In a "world," the players are/should be the only characters that contribute to the story.  Therefore, develop a system that allows the players to determine what the current quests and missions are.  Make it so the rewards for those player-created missions and quests are determined by a variety of other factors, such as economic and political factors.  NPCs should then fill a more passive, hands-off role.  NPCs would take the form of animals, creatures, and monsters--designed to roam, attack, defend, or even be domesticated.  Make them a resource for the players.  And, yes, human NPCs could still exist, but the same rules applied to other NPCs should remain in effect.

If a developer can successfully achieve building a "world," instead of a "game," they will have placed the story in the hands of the players.  This allows the developer to step back and take on a different type of development role--a role where they spend less time creating content and more time fixing and tweaking their game world and systems.

I'm sure you're thinking, "Great, Alex.  All of this is well and good, but it seems a little too out of reach at the moment."  And, yes, there really isn't a hugely successful example of a developer creating a "world" instead of a "game," that I can point to.  However, there is a game that is pushing the "game" boundaries and it goes by the name Face of Mankind.  Sure it's not pretty, and has a lot of flaws, but it is one of the first games I've played that really places the world in the players' hands.

To better understand this "game" vs. "world" concept, imagine these scenarios:

• Your faction leader being a real player, and not an NPC that just stands in a castle all day, handing out quests from time to time depending on your level.
• Imagine that all the game's land can be explored from the beginning, and where even starting areas can be important and relevant no matter how long you've been playing.
• Imagine no more linear-style advancement, where levels no longer determine whether you can only kill wolves, or whether you can kill large monsters.
• Imagine your faction city as a cluster of player-built houses, taverns, walls, and guard towers.
• Imagine that you don't want to belong to a faction at all, and you can simply walk into a forest, build yourself a small hut, and hunt animals alone.
• Imagine starting your own mining company, where you either setup agreements with nearby faction cities or choose not to.
• Imagine crafting your own weapons, or simply buying them from a local merchant.
• Imagine exploring a map that is completely uncharted, only to stumble upon a small player-created faction settlement next to a river.
• Imagine being attacked by an unknown faction army and having your city burnt to the ground.
• Imagine being defeated by an enemy faction and being given two options: join the conquering faction or go into exile, being forced to fend for yourself.
• Imagine being exiled, only to begin creating a new faction city from the ground up, always vowing to one day gather enough strength to take revenge against the faction that exiled you.
• Imagine climbing to the tallest part of a mountain with your friends and living there, out of the way of large, war-like factions.

These are the types of freedoms a "world" provides.  Endless possibilities and player-driven stories.  Paths created out of options rather than by developer decisions.

I had the chance to play the Aliens vs. Predator demo a little more last night.  I've played both the Marine and Alien so far.  Being the Predator just doesn't interest me all that much, and it doesn't fit my playstyle.  Here's what I think:

Compared to both the original and Aliens vs. Predator 2, this remake is true to the series.  The visuals and sound effects are top notch and help create the atmosphere needed for a game like this.  The deathmatch game mode does seem a bit stupid, as all three factions have no loyalty to one another.  With that said, one of the games I was playing last night had a group of Marines working together anyway, while the Aliens and Predators seem to play solo, which was pretty cool.

There are two big things I have a problem with:

• Matchmaking is used in the demo!  Ugh!  Worse yet, they actually said whether they'd have dedicated servers or not.  So, I noticed a decent amount of lag when playing, which was even more apparent when trying to play as the Alien, which relies on moving extremely fast.
• The controls aren't as smooth and reliable as I was hoping.  However, some of this could be the result of matchmaking lag.  For example, there are "grab" attacks Aliens and Predators can do when they get right behind an opponent that allows them to perform an instant kill, usually by impaling their enemy.  This looks awesome, but can be visually disjointed.  There were very few instances while playing as an Alien where I successfully grabbed someone without a visual glitch.  Most of the time, they'd appear to be a few feet away when I already hit the grab button.  Then they'd suddenly be in my grasp anyway.

I've already pre-purchased the full version on Steam.  And, despite my misgivings about matchmaking on the PC, I'm going to follow through.  Aliens vs. Predator 2 was one of the first FPS games I played on my first powerful PC.  Considering this seems to be a decent follow-up (despite the apparent lack of dedicated servers), I can't resist.

Anyway, here's some gameplay of the Marine.  Once again, I love the sound effects.  Most notably when nothing was around me and I heard the environmental woosh of humid air and a faint Alien noise.  Very cool.

Update on Monday, February 8, 2010 by Alex Taldren

I have some additional thoughts about AvP now that I've played it a bit more.

• Why can't you crouch as a marine?  Seems rather stupid.
• Why is my microphone always transmitting when sitting in a game lobby?  I know this is a PS3/Xbox 360 feature, but this is basic PC development.  Not everyone has the same microhpone/system settings, so you can anticipate how that will affect things.  For example, it doesn't affect some people, like my brother, who's microphone isn't sensitive enough to pick up his voice unless he speaks, but mine is very sensitive, so I'm constantly transmitting unless I unplug it.  Worse yet, there are no options to customine the microphone settings for the game.  Dumb.
• Transitioning from the ground to the wall an an alien is a pain.  Walking up to the wall and then pressing and holding the transition key requires you to wait a second before you can start crawling.  Yes, there are ways around this by focus-jumping to the wall, but simply running along the corridor and strafing onto the wall shouldn't be that difficult.
• Matchmaking is horrible.  It is made even worse when the game doesn't migrate to a new host if the original one leaves.  If you HAVE to do matchmaking, at least get the basic concepts down.

All in all, the actual gameplay is fun, considering I've only played deathmatch, which typically sucks.  At least the menus can be navigated using the mouse (*cough* Borderlands *cough*).  Hopefully, Rebellion plans to tweak its PC version of AvP a little more after release.  I just can't stand these un-optimized PC games much longer.

So I'm one week into MAG and I'm freaking obsessed.  The worst part is that the Raven faction, which my friends and I chose to play, seems to have the least skilled plaeyrs.  Therefore, we get our butts kicked around 60% of the time.  Yet, despite loss after loss, I find the game extremely fun.

My character is sitting at level 50 right now and only 10 levels away until I hit the max.  While they give you the option of switching factions once you reach 60, I'll probably decline.  Of course, that means I'll miss out on the Platinum trophy, which requires you to reach level 60 with each faction, but I still laugh at the notion of "trophies" at all.  Setting up the trophies that way seems contradictory to the idea of having "faction loyalty," which was something I thought was a major theme.  Regardless, I could do "Veteran" mode, which lets me start over from level 1 with Raven, but the only benefit is a shiny gold icon that tells everyone, "Hey, look how awesome I am!"

In the meantime, remember Aliens vs. Predator?  I sure do.  I also remember talking with my friends about how awesome it would be if there was an Aliens game that featured a co-op mode similar to Left 4 Dead.  In fact, I was waiting for someone to mod L4D and replace the zombies with Xenomorphs, but that hasn't happened.  But, that doesn't seem to be an issue now that Rebellion has put up a trailer showcasing AvP's Survival mode!

Finally, even if the single-player campaign isn't the greatest in the world, at least they are indulging one of my favorite fantasies... if defending waves of Xenomorph attacks with fellow marines could be called a fantasy.

Although, this does make me wonder what exactly holds for the future of Sega's OTHER game based on the popular movies, Aliens: Colonial Marines.  If AvP seems to be covering all the basics, what will the other title offer that is different?  Or, will it even come out at all?

So, while I wait for the opportunity to scream "Game over, man!  Game over!" and "Why don't you put her in charge!" I've starting putting time into the Bad Company 2 beta for the PC.  And, surprisingly, my impressions are mixed.

First, it seems that Bad Company 2 is a tad more difficult to run than most of my other games.  It requires a decent amount of hardware power.  This has more to do with my 2-year old equipment than the game itself, but games that remind me that I don't make enough money to keep my PC updated tend to leave me resentful.

With that said, the game does look really nice, especially running at 1920x1200.  Now, I played the PS3 beta of BC2, and I feel it is necessary to draw a comparison here.  The PS3 beta did seem... smoother, both visually and in the controls.  However, both could be the result of an aging PC.  After a little tweaking to the video settings, I was able to find a comfortable level of play.

I have only played an hour or two so far, but it is fun.  Again, only one map is available during the PC beta, but at least it is a different map from the one during the PS3 beta.  One thing I can say, Bad Company 2 (PC) is everything Modern Warfare 2 should have been and more, and this is coming from someone who has loved every Call of Duty since the original filled the void let by Medal of Honor: Allied Assault's fade into history.

I'll have more on all three of these game once I have them in my hands.