Why your favourite video game sucks, Game mechanics and other stuff

[Junkenstein]

This is(will) be a lot longer than my previous posts. It may(will) be disjointed, raise more questions than answers will my Layman(total belming fool) take on some things. I'll try and shove in a few funnies. Remember to laugh politely at the appropriate times.
(If this is in the wrong place or would suit another section better, please move it or take it up with someone who can.)
(There will also be parenthesis) (There's a TL;DR if you are now thinking "Fuck you") (Fuck you too)

Disclaimer over, Lets get into this.

Firstly, Relevant background. I have played A LOT of games. I probably have saved games older than some of you. I could tell you scary amounts of detail about more than a few dozen. What I'm saying here is I've broken my share of Mice, Keyboards, consoles, gamepads, joysticks and any other gear that you'd care to name. I also haven't really bothered playing any for a fair few years.

The reason is, pretty much all of them fucking sucked.

Harsh conclusion, and I came to this by learning a great deal more about Game theory. No, we're not talking about PUA bullshit, we can snigger about that later. I'm thinking more along the lines of this

(Educational break, this is about an hour, but does cover the subject pretty well so at least we're all kind of thinking about the same Kinda thing here. Or look around and read up on wikipedia or something if this stuff means nothing to you.) (I told you there would be brackets)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXdfU2DoF8o&feature=BFa&list=PLD03FB084B11A0454&lf=plcp


That's the more technical side. When you start to break down the games you play directly in terms of the mechanics, they seem to become a totally different experience. Take Diablo 2. I FUCKING LOVED D2. I played that game a horrendous amount. Don't even try and say you did worse, I've probably got the saves somewhere to prove it. When you view it as an exercise in the skinner box mechanic applied to my psyche(And judging from the size of the player base it had and WOW has,) it's an incredible achievement. Never got Sucked into WOW thank gods, I was self aware enough to know that if I even touched that I may as well go and buy a big sack o' crack.

Anyway, point being, look at your favourite game, in terms of pure mechanics. What are you actually doing and WHY does it give you enjoyment? Why do we not consider our entertainment more frequently? As I understand it, to tackle our reality properly, do we not have to examine these things as critically if not moreso than political/social phenomena? I would place it at a similar importance as we choose to consume these media of our own volition. No one made me play any of these games. If you've never had the "I'll go to bed in a minute" then play for 3 more hours, say "fuck it" then playing for another few days" moment or similar then you're probably more interested in the next thing.

Another reason that pretty much all of these games sucked, would be for the same reason a lot of films or books sucked. There's just no emotional engagement.
Other thing,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnCpSMlUEpo


Lots of good points in here again. Take the Zombie game he came up with. 2 Parents, 2 kids, each has a specific strength, a relatively easy to manage praeto frontier. If you kept the difficulty options open and allowed people to dick about with what the characters look like, this would sell millions.

Out of all the games I've played, I can narrow down the ones that actually had something that touched me on an emotional level down to about a dozen. While I would argue any of those to be amazing games, is this not an unusually low number compared to how many pieces of music/art/film/etc would be considered to be emotionally moving? 

Look at the motherfucking adverts for the New Deus Ex. Those adverts have asked better questions about transhumanism than the vast majority of blogs devoted to the subject. For a term that is only likely to be more widespread and relevant over the next few hundred years, why not push the boundaries in terms of plot? With video games now protected by the 1st amendment, should and/or could this then not become a pseudo political platform? It seems possible to engineer a game towards a mindset that would allow the player to empathise more with a presented choice. Consider the potential that this is already the case with the spate of FPS derivates.

Marine Vs (ethnic minority here) in (get the idea?)

I recall hearing something along the lines of similar reflexes being shared between helicopter pilots and top fps players. I doubt the fitness level matches, but a way to utilise that same basic reflex... Drones? They've been getting popular.

Final point before the wonderful TL;DR
Have a final video for getting down here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM&feature=related
20 mins. Made me chuckle. 

If you've got this far, then blessings on your hide my child. May the sun gods wake you gently. For everyone else......

TL:DR

1- Look at your favourite game/s. Identify the key mechanic/s. What does this say about you? If it's something like farmville consider thy life. Does this information/perspective change your feeling toward the game?

2 - Emotional engagement in games, Have you had any and should this be pursued? Why the fuck are people not more interested in this? A way to create genuinely unique experiences could be the potential here?

3 - People are stupid part MMDII part 16c. Modern games spoonfed people.

4-Make what you want of that, Just wanted to get a few ideas out of my head and see if they clicked with anyone.

[Scribbly]

I understand some of where you are coming from. You certainly have the 'pedigree' on me, but gaming has been a part of my life for literally as long as I can remember. One of my earliest memories is sitting on my father's knee and playing 'Doom'. I disagree with some of your points though.

Re: Emotional engagement and the smaller number of emotionally gripping games. I fail to be emotionally moved by the vast majority of media I consume. If you look at the sheer quantity of shite books, movies and TV shows that are pumped out, the games market is comparatively smaller. There might be 12-18 'smash hit' games released in a year. Compare/contrast with the number of 'must see' TV shows you'll have rubbed in your face. I don't think the proportion is much different. There's just MORE of other types of media so proportionately there's more things worth seeing. People ARE interested in the emotional impact of games.

Heck, I'd say that is what MMOs are all based on. You point out they are addictive; they are addictive because there is a genuine sense of accomplishment which flows with them. It isn't a highbrow emotional response, but it is still a very emotional response. And it relies on something unique to video games; the input of the user. No other form of media has that input and can evoke those emotions.

Re: Modern Games Spoonfeed People. When I was growing up I adored strategy games (particularly turn based) and RPGs. Both of these have vastly improved over recent years. I tried to play Fallout again recently, and it is just painful to go through compared to Fallout 3/New Vegas (which have collectively stolen hundreds of hours of my life).

Games CAN still be hard. But I reject the notion that being hard is in itself necessary or even desirable. No other form of media shuts you off because you can't pass an arbitrary skill level (as Dara O'Brian says in his routine). There are older games in my collection I have never finished and will never go back to. Modern games can provide an enjoyable and fun experience without necessarily being a difficult experience. Difficulty for its own sake is just infuriating and rarely adds anything to the experience of the game, IMO.

Anyway. Looking at my Favorites list in Steam as a quicky:

The Binding of Isaac (INSANELY difficult to beat, bullet hell/roguelike. 48 hours played, usually in 20 minute bursts when I've got time to kill).

Fallout: New Vegas 121 hours played. FPS/RPG.

Civilization 5 - relatively new purchase, TBS, 22 hours played.

Recettear: An Item Shop's Tale. Shop management RPG/simulation. 12 hours played (but in terms of experience, probably my favorite on the list. The story was hilarious, the characters great. Not too much replay value, but good fun whilst it lasted).

What do these say about me as a person?

I'm not sure they say anything at all. I consume a wide variety of media. I play all sorts of games (except racing; that's never done anything for me, weirdly) so somewhere in my collection I've got mechanics which range from Farmville-esque (Harvest Moon. Fuck Yeah, Potato Crop Simulation 2010) to mindless gun violence (Borderlands!) and everything in between.

Games offer us a wide variety of opportunities not available in other media. These largely come down to the fact that the consumer is an active participant in a way that they very rarely even approach in other forms; the closest being CYOA novels and reality television. What they also offer is the ability to share experiences.

For examples of these in three very different ways in modern games:

The Old Republic is an MMO which sells itself based almost entirely on its engaging story. It is damn good at it, too, and with friends is a unique and enjoyable experience.

Mass Effect 3 has provoked an outpouring of anger and vitriol due to its failure to deliver a perceived good ending. This is all over the internet right now. All these people wanted deep, emotional games. They felt they got them, largely, in 1 and 2, and whether or not they got one in 3 seems to be the point of the debate.

Finally, the fighting game community has many direct parallels with the world of professional sports. Larger than life celebrity figures (Daigo THE BEAST, Justin Wong) with their own fanbases, competing in games which are fine tuned down to the smallest detail in an attempt to make a level playing field in which skill and strategy are the deciding factors. Before I knew anything about this community, I would have said that professional sports don't have any real parallels as a form of entertainment with the intensely personal experience of video games. Now, I think video games have an alternative to every form of media in some way, and offer opportunities to engage and explore anything that earlier forms of media can do, in new ways.

I think the rest of the world is starting to wake up to this fact, too.

[Reginald Ret]

I think Sid Meier would have something to say about this subject.
'A game is a series of interesting choices.'
For me, no game has scored higher on addiction x annoyance than Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri ( for those familiar with CIV but not with AC, it has gradual elevation! and that can be changed! Both by you, other factions and random accidents. One tactic would be to raise a high ridge upwind of an opponent's lands to keep all the rain/nutrients for yourself.)

Anyway, I had a point but i forgot.

[Kai]

When I think of game mechanics, and why they work when they work, I think of flOw. You know, Jenova Chen's thesis project, illuminating the mental focus that occurs when challenge and ability are closely matched, and striving to make that "flow" part of the game's mechanic.


My favorite games of the past always included some sort of exploration and transformation. Environmental puzzle games (e.g. Prince of Persia Sands of Time, Knytt Stories by Nifflas) were my past obsession, but currently, I am loving Minecraft. There has definitely been an emotional engagement with that game. I play it, I watch other people play it, I talk about playing it. The deep level of control over every aspect of the experience plays to my interests. I don't just want to say "build a city here" and have Civ II do it for me. I want to actually build and explore by hand. I find that deeply satisfying.

[Junkenstein]

1 - Re: Emotional engagement and the smaller number of emotionally gripping games. I fail to be emotionally moved by the vast majority of media I consume. If you look at the sheer quantity of shite books, movies and TV shows that are pumped out, the games market is comparatively smaller. There might be 12-18 'smash hit' games released in a year. Compare/contrast with the number of 'must see' TV shows you'll have rubbed in your face. I don't think the proportion is much different. There's just MORE of other types of media so proportionately there's more things worth seeing. People ARE interested in the emotional impact of games.

2- Heck, I'd say that is what MMOs are all based on. You point out they are addictive; they are addictive because there is a genuine sense of accomplishment which flows with them. It isn't a highbrow emotional response, but it is still a very emotional response. And it relies on something unique to video games; the input of the user. No other form of media has that input and can evoke those emotions.

3 - Games CAN still be hard. But I reject the notion that being hard is in itself necessary or even desirable. No other form of media shuts you off because you can't pass an arbitrary skill level (as Dara O'Brian says in his routine). There are older games in my collection I have never finished and will never go back to. Modern games can provide an enjoyable and fun experience without necessarily being a difficult experience. Difficulty for its own sake is just infuriating and rarely adds anything to the experience of the game, IMO.

Right, with any luck this should be a little more coherent and less rambling bullshit. I'm going to refer to this post a lot to try and direct my thinking.

1- Games are now outselling pretty much ever other media. There's been a few articles about this recently, google around.
A lot of the "AAA" "hyperbole here" titles cost considerable amounts to produce, comparable to films in many cases. Now film is a media more associated with engendering emotion, but how many "Generic FPS" titles that make up a substantial amount of these blockbuster releases manage to create any emotion? The last I can recall was some sort of deep space horror shooter (name eludes me. There was a sequel) that actually got a kind of "Event Horizon" kind of vibe from the offset. It was pretty good, like the first time running round in the dark in doom.

A lot of people probably do want more emotional or atmospheric games, May have been a bit harsh. It just looks like the industry is not looking at that. I'm being rather broad with "emotion", what I'm trying to get at is you really should either be immersed or thinking something other than "this is fun/dull/meh/" more "this is claustrophobic/oppressive/expansive" I don't think I'm describing this very well.

2 - My issue with most MMO's is more that the main investment you make is time. While there is a degree of skill, it's usually fairly low and spending more time allows you to plough through the content eventually, even if you're totally useless. While it can be pleasurable, you really gain nothing apart from progression in a stateful environment. With wiki's about everything, your imagination really needs to suck if you can't google all the top equipment, imagine how that looks on an avatar and just not bother playing at all.
This may be more personal resentment than sense. I just think we should be looking more at how to raise a skill, whatever it is, rather than just present people with a grinding mechanic and a skinner box. The "accomplishment" should be more than just proof you've spent another X hours on a game.

3 - The difficulty question. The best way I can think to demonstrate this is "Tetris" Pretty much the best example difficulty in a video game ever really. Simple to grasp, against an increasing clock that is based on your performance.
Alright it breaks down after a while, but it makes more sense to me for say, an action a game to build to progressively difficult bosses, the final being the hardest? Countless games have you in a state that when you reach the end, you're usually totally overpowered compared to enemies you face. While rewarding to smash everything to a pulp, we're straight back to the grind/smash mechanic that results in no skill being practised really.

The rest I can't really comment on too well. I'm not familiar with a lot of it, so I'll get my hands on some and see what's what.

[Kai]

1 - Re: Emotional engagement and the smaller number of emotionally gripping games. I fail to be emotionally moved by the vast majority of media I consume. If you look at the sheer quantity of shite books, movies and TV shows that are pumped out, the games market is comparatively smaller. There might be 12-18 'smash hit' games released in a year. Compare/contrast with the number of 'must see' TV shows you'll have rubbed in your face. I don't think the proportion is much different. There's just MORE of other types of media so proportionately there's more things worth seeing. People ARE interested in the emotional impact of games.

2- Heck, I'd say that is what MMOs are all based on. You point out they are addictive; they are addictive because there is a genuine sense of accomplishment which flows with them. It isn't a highbrow emotional response, but it is still a very emotional response. And it relies on something unique to video games; the input of the user. No other form of media has that input and can evoke those emotions.

3 - Games CAN still be hard. But I reject the notion that being hard is in itself necessary or even desirable. No other form of media shuts you off because you can't pass an arbitrary skill level (as Dara O'Brian says in his routine). There are older games in my collection I have never finished and will never go back to. Modern games can provide an enjoyable and fun experience without necessarily being a difficult experience. Difficulty for its own sake is just infuriating and rarely adds anything to the experience of the game, IMO.

Right, with any luck this should be a little more coherent and less rambling bullshit. I'm going to refer to this post a lot to try and direct my thinking.

1- Games are now outselling pretty much ever other media. There's been a few articles about this recently, google around.
A lot of the "AAA" "hyperbole here" titles cost considerable amounts to produce, comparable to films in many cases. Now film is a media more associated with engendering emotion, but how many "Generic FPS" titles that make up a substantial amount of these blockbuster releases manage to create any emotion? The last I can recall was some sort of deep space horror shooter (name eludes me. There was a sequel) that actually got a kind of "Event Horizon" kind of vibe from the offset. It was pretty good, like the first time running round in the dark in doom.

A lot of people probably do want more emotional or atmospheric games, May have been a bit harsh. It just looks like the industry is not looking at that. I'm being rather broad with "emotion", what I'm trying to get at is you really should either be immersed or thinking something other than "this is fun/dull/meh/" more "this is claustrophobic/oppressive/expansive" I don't think I'm describing this very well.

2 - My issue with most MMO's is more that the main investment you make is time. While there is a degree of skill, it's usually fairly low and spending more time allows you to plough through the content eventually, even if you're totally useless. While it can be pleasurable, you really gain nothing apart from progression in a stateful environment. With wiki's about everything, your imagination really needs to suck if you can't google all the top equipment, imagine how that looks on an avatar and just not bother playing at all.
This may be more personal resentment than sense. I just think we should be looking more at how to raise a skill, whatever it is, rather than just present people with a grinding mechanic and a skinner box. The "accomplishment" should be more than just proof you've spent another X hours on a game.

3 - The difficulty question. The best way I can think to demonstrate this is "Tetris" Pretty much the best example difficulty in a video game ever really. Simple to grasp, against an increasing clock that is based on your performance.
Alright it breaks down after a while, but it makes more sense to me for say, an action a game to build to progressively difficult bosses, the final being the hardest? Countless games have you in a state that when you reach the end, you're usually totally overpowered compared to enemies you face. While rewarding to smash everything to a pulp, we're straight back to the grind/smash mechanic that results in no skill being practised really.

The rest I can't really comment on too well. I'm not familiar with a lot of it, so I'll get my hands on some and see what's what.

1- Citation needed on the "outselling every other media".

2-MMO's in concept try to be a traditional RPG with PvP options. The accomplishment should be, well, /roleplay/ with other people. As opposed to reaching level 99. Which is why they fail.

3-If the most important aspect of flow is to streamline difficulty so that a person of any skill level can enjoy themselves, then /insanely difficult/ is not really that useful. Of course, neither is "overpowered into boredom". Most games tend to err on one side or the other. The best flow would have near constant bayesian updates on difficulty, depending on the player's skill level.

[Junkenstein]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17458205

(Note, passing video/dvd sales. projections are still up and ahead apparently. I've been a little extreme again, it's more something like 2030 that game sales would be the larger combined industry. That growth also incorporates mini games, mobile games, etc. Stuff like the Wii being marketed towards older people and more kinetic options/tablets/smartphones are really driving sales if I recall   correctly. Will dig out another article that was pretty interesting. I would suspect the film industry to be looking increasingly toward game franchises as a result of this.)

2- Totally agree. Imagine if Call of duty or the like was run once a day, and the setting was The Somme. Or any other historic battle. Tech should have reached the point where games larger than the old tribes 2 style(60on 60) look small. Allow a few players Natural Selection kind of gameplay to increase the audience and have even a bunch of smaller battles relate to a scale of a larger battle.

Either one massive instance or a series of games leading to a (frequency) result would sound more appealing to me.

Run it as you die, you die. Allow spectation from a range of angles. That's probably closer to a real MMO than warcraft.

3 - Quite agree again. It seems a minor thing to incorporate, though it's probably a fucker to code. Unreal Tournament had an option of set difficulty or allow the AI to scale to your standard. A graceful way of sidestepping the problem.

I suppose the way to implement that in RPG's and such is have enemies scale to your level/power. I also imagine this would piss off a lot of people who were used to being invincible. Adding extra risk to the time-sink has to be balanced with a carrot. Make it an option and be allowed to get this gear instead would be obvious I guess.


Probably rambling again.

[Cain]

Concerning MMOs, I do know that there are a large number of communities who use the Neverwinter Nights 2 world construction set to create in depth and detailed roleplaying experiences on shared servers.  They get heavily into the whole world creation aspect, and often emphasize the non-combat skills the game design provides, but fails to utilise effectively. 

There is still a certain degree of combat, but it's certainly not centered around raiding.  In fact, you could quite easily avoid combat for exceptionally long periods of time (some games will naturally have plots where large-scale invasions of villages and towns do occur...some lock low level players out of those areas when it happens, whereas others just let them get slaughtered).  There are also exceptionally harsh penalties for having Out of Character conversations...being locked out for 48 hours is a common one.  Penalties for abusing OOC knowledge also exist, though of course it is much harder to prove.

These are not as popular as the likes of World of Warcraft, but this could be due to the fact they are almost universally fan-run and free to play.  They do not have dedicated, professional support or scriptwriters and game designers driving the plot forward.  The Old Republic suggests there is definitely a market for this kind of thing, but exploiting it is tricky, as it ties up useful resources (imagine if, say, Bioware had created a Baldur's Gate style MMO with an evolving progressing storyline....would David Gaider have had the time to work on Dragon Age?  Probably not).

[Scribbly]

1 - Re: Emotional engagement and the smaller number of emotionally gripping games. I fail to be emotionally moved by the vast majority of media I consume. If you look at the sheer quantity of shite books, movies and TV shows that are pumped out, the games market is comparatively smaller. There might be 12-18 'smash hit' games released in a year. Compare/contrast with the number of 'must see' TV shows you'll have rubbed in your face. I don't think the proportion is much different. There's just MORE of other types of media so proportionately there's more things worth seeing. People ARE interested in the emotional impact of games.

2- Heck, I'd say that is what MMOs are all based on. You point out they are addictive; they are addictive because there is a genuine sense of accomplishment which flows with them. It isn't a highbrow emotional response, but it is still a very emotional response. And it relies on something unique to video games; the input of the user. No other form of media has that input and can evoke those emotions.

3 - Games CAN still be hard. But I reject the notion that being hard is in itself necessary or even desirable. No other form of media shuts you off because you can't pass an arbitrary skill level (as Dara O'Brian says in his routine). There are older games in my collection I have never finished and will never go back to. Modern games can provide an enjoyable and fun experience without necessarily being a difficult experience. Difficulty for its own sake is just infuriating and rarely adds anything to the experience of the game, IMO.

Right, with any luck this should be a little more coherent and less rambling bullshit. I'm going to refer to this post a lot to try and direct my thinking.

1- Games are now outselling pretty much ever other media. There's been a few articles about this recently, google around.
A lot of the "AAA" "hyperbole here" titles cost considerable amounts to produce, comparable to films in many cases. Now film is a media more associated with engendering emotion, but how many "Generic FPS" titles that make up a substantial amount of these blockbuster releases manage to create any emotion? The last I can recall was some sort of deep space horror shooter (name eludes me. There was a sequel) that actually got a kind of "Event Horizon" kind of vibe from the offset. It was pretty good, like the first time running round in the dark in doom.

A lot of people probably do want more emotional or atmospheric games, May have been a bit harsh. It just looks like the industry is not looking at that. I'm being rather broad with "emotion", what I'm trying to get at is you really should either be immersed or thinking something other than "this is fun/dull/meh/" more "this is claustrophobic/oppressive/expansive" I don't think I'm describing this very well.

2 - My issue with most MMO's is more that the main investment you make is time. While there is a degree of skill, it's usually fairly low and spending more time allows you to plough through the content eventually, even if you're totally useless. While it can be pleasurable, you really gain nothing apart from progression in a stateful environment. With wiki's about everything, your imagination really needs to suck if you can't google all the top equipment, imagine how that looks on an avatar and just not bother playing at all.
This may be more personal resentment than sense. I just think we should be looking more at how to raise a skill, whatever it is, rather than just present people with a grinding mechanic and a skinner box. The "accomplishment" should be more than just proof you've spent another X hours on a game.

3 - The difficulty question. The best way I can think to demonstrate this is "Tetris" Pretty much the best example difficulty in a video game ever really. Simple to grasp, against an increasing clock that is based on your performance.
Alright it breaks down after a while, but it makes more sense to me for say, an action a game to build to progressively difficult bosses, the final being the hardest? Countless games have you in a state that when you reach the end, you're usually totally overpowered compared to enemies you face. While rewarding to smash everything to a pulp, we're straight back to the grind/smash mechanic that results in no skill being practised really.

The rest I can't really comment on too well. I'm not familiar with a lot of it, so I'll get my hands on some and see what's what.

My issue is that there is an implicit assumption that games must (or at least should) be about sharpening a skill. I don't see that in any other form of media, I don't see why it needs to be the case in gaming.

Full disclosure: I'm terrible at most games, yet I enjoy them and spend far too many hours playing them. I don't consider myself to be very skilled, and if I can't run through the content eventually, it winds up feeling like I've completely wasted my time/money.

What I actually spend most of my time doing in gaming is playing online MU*s. These are text based platforms (rather niche I admit) which is something like an online version of a tabletop game, albeit one without a GM for the majority of the time.

MU*s have been directly effected by the rise of MMOs, which offer more immediate rewards for less time input. But to me, they scratch very different itches. There is practically zero hack and slash in a MU*; whilst there may be combat, it is exceedingly rare that it is 'deadly' combat (you've usually spent hours or even days just going through the application process to get your character, losing them is something which is clearly signposted, usually agreed to on a player to player basis, and rare. Not in all games, but certainly in the ones I play) and the focus is entirely on communal storytelling and writing.

These elements require several things you just can't have in a commercial, broadly available product, though. It requires a strong community working towards the same ends, a level of maturity and cooperation, and that you are willing to place others above yourself sometimes in the growth of the narrative. There's also about a billion small little issues which creep in through the usual interpersonal drama, and the fact that stories by necessity become focused on characters and character interaction most of the time. The world is a persistent 24/7 place and whilst there are often overarching metaplots, it is exceedingly rare that things actually change for the world as a whole; simply because by doing so, you risk alienating large chunks of people.

To be a major commercial success MMOs have to appeal to a huge number of people, they have to provide near-immediate access (something which you can't have if you are trying to maintain a certain level of thematic consistency or narrative focus). You also can't ban disruptive elements as easily because they've paid for the game.

MU*s are a lot more like Cain's NWN worlds but without the graphical component to it. MU*s have less issues with OOC chatter though; indeed MOST of the interaction on a MU* is OOC by proportion of time spent, I would wager. You are setting up stories and shooting the shit with people, community interaction is key. The abuse of OOC knowledge for IC gain is massively frowned on though.

At its hayday, I believe the largest MU* had approximately 1000 members. According to http://mushcode.com/MushList.aspx (which only covers about half the games available, admittedly), the largest now has an average of 538 (... and is the sort of place that would appeal to BH), with 161 and 78 being the runners up for what I would actually call fairly typical MU*s.

Most games have approximately 12-24 people and run fairly successfully with those numbers. When you start getting up to the levels of The Reach, you start getting huge problems with just juggling that many people and having staff to administrate for them. Shangrila, the biggest game there with 500+ all furiously text-sexing each other in bizarre and vaguely horrifying ways, doesn't really have much in the way of a communal world at all. It mostly exists as a hook-up joint (though theoretically there IS a unifying theme, world, and people play characters which have importance in it and maintain on-grid consistency etcetera).

[Junkenstein]

Games focusing more on collaborative story telling are an interesting beast.

I've played a few systems that encourage this, and the stories that evolve can range in quality significantly. This I would mainly attribute to the actual game system involved. D&D is great for games mainly involving looting and killing stuff, as this is what tends to give you rewards in game. When you get the rarities like Planescape: Torment you start to get an idea of what these mechanics can become if loosened up a little.

Tabletop stuff like Burning Wheel make the story the actual reward instead of personal advancement. It's just more fun to fail/succeed occasionally when it has an ongoing impact on the narrative. Getting a server full of people all interested in weaving a good yarn is a markedly different audience to those who like to be told a good story though.

I've got some spare time coming up this week so I'll try and get through some of the games mentioned here and give you a long rambling post covering as much as I can.

[tjg92]

Dwarf Fortress is where it's at.

[The Johnny]

I think the main focus of the presentation and regarding the OP is about the donkey-and-carrot mechanics which objective is to get peoples money rather than to provide entertainment.

i think real time strategies dont fall into this category, contrary-wise, theres people that play these games profesionally that make a living out of it... for example, original Starcraft, real time strategy; its not about leveling up, its not about doing quests for clothing, its about how well you can keep it together in different levels: decisions deeply tied to strategy that involve economy, micro management to properly use offensive units, the timing windows in which these same units are effective, and reacting appropiately to the decisions your opponent makes.

i even think its cognitively benevolent, for it trains you to discern information while under pressure and a certain mental discipline to make plans/strategies while thinking the logistics of carrying it out within a given frame of time.

Surely not many people can emphatize with this, because its out of the realm of feelings or meaning that RPGs provide...