Monday Mutterings: Mini-Gaming For Fun and Profit
Dialogue, 2003-12-08

I thought it only fitting that since today is the official launch date of Yohoho Puzzle Pirates that I would discuss something MMOGs are missing nowadays: the Mini-Game. Despite the heavy layer of abstraction that most MMOGs place on their game systems, developers for the most part seem to be reluctant to include a component like a mini-game into systems like crafting or harvesting. I feel strongly that this decision is a detriment to the genre. After all, why would we want to have fun in a game?

As a starting point, let's return to the old saw of MMORPGDot, the world vs. game dilemma. For the most part, MMOG developers up until now have leaned in the direction of world-building. Ultima Online's early attempt to emulate predator-prey relations is an excellent example of developer world-building efforts. However, we all know how that turned out. Within a few hours of game start, the ecosystem had been decimated by players wanting to hunt the forest critters. All of that time spent coding the fragile balance of nature could have been spent elsewhere. This essential disconnect between what the player wants from the world and from what the developer wants from the world shows itself in many forms, and all of them have to do with fun.

The potential of any massively multiplayer game is in the interactions between the players and the game world, and between the disparate players. While players have never had any trouble coming up with fun things to do amongst themselves (much to the consternation of developers), the fun factor available from the game world is limited by the expertise and involvement of the programmers and writers. While you can arrange a player wedding just by talking to some other folks, you and other players can't get together to code a new island to explore (Though, that's a good idea. Have to get back to that in a later column.). Thus, you would think that developers would do their best to provide players with a goodly deal of material that could keep them occupied.

Instead, in the name of world-consistency, we're left with the game systems of today. The fun factor of harvesting in Star Wars Galaxies ran out pretty darn quickly. Sitting there watching my stylishly dressed Mon Cal kneel amongst plumes of dust was amusing only insomuch as I couldn't believe I was doing it. I have to tell you, I would much rather have been taken out of the "Star Warsyness" of the moment (not that I can think of any there to begin with) by playing a mini-game.

Tetris, anyone?

Mini-Games serve several functions as replacements for game systems. First and foremost, puzzles are about a hundred times more fun than staring blankly at a screen. Several Linux distributions have a Tetris clone available to play during installation for just this reason. Puzzle games are so intrinsically entertaining to most people that designing one fun enough for use as a game system would be relatively trivial. In addition to the fun factor, they will make a player more involved in the game world. Instead of a clunky, abstract system where you get "+5 to harvesting" or "+10 to sword smithing", representations of ore or sword pieces can get moved around the screen, showing the player in a general sense what is going on. with the right mentality, mini-games can be even more true to the world than another approach. While EQ's "put everything in a bag and combine" method works, wouldn't it be much cooler to play a game where you melted ore into a usable form, and then another game where you beat the metal into a sword shape, and then another game where you refined the sword? Each step could be a discrete, different game, and after each step you would have a different item, worth varying degrees of money based on the market.

Mini-games can also mimic the functionality of other gaming systems currently in use. Instead of a plus to a skill, as you practice smithing or harvesting the games can gradually become less challenging, both as a function of your increased (real life) skill and by lowering the challenge of the puzzles. This can allow for higher end content as well, with new smithing techniques and items opening up and different items to harvest. You can visually, in real time, show a player why he's not yet qualified to harvest the super duper ore. Instead of a lame message saying "You do not yet have the skill", you could pop him into the game like normal, but the challenge and style of the game will be so different from what he's used to that he'll fail very quickly. Demonstrating to players why x cannot happen is a much better way to deal with issues than simply handwaving away a player's abilities or dedication.

All this goes back to my firm belief that developers should take a harder look at the "G" in the name of the genre we all love. Mini-games can be world faithful and would improve the fun factor in several aspects of the MMOG genre immensely. They would also be, to my way of thinking, good for business. Try thinking about the last time you explained a MMOG to a non-MMOG playing friend. "Yeah, you kill a bunch of orcs for hours at a time." That'll win them over. What if, on the other hand, you could tell your friend that they got to make cool gear, clothes, weapons, armor, buildings even, all by playing Tetris? Tetris is way more approachable than "Hit A and walk away." Heck, I'm considering introducing my Mom to Puzzle Pirates, and emphatically not Everquest. If my Mom isn't a validation of a successful way of making a game, then I ask you, what is? :)