The problem with mmorpgs and story...
by Jusitn Scifres · in Game Design and Creative Issues · 06/14/2006 (12:43 pm) · 115 replies
This is a bit of a philiposhpical / literary venture so bear with me... there's an idea in here, i promise...
the reason why mmorpgs are hard to become motivated with is that there is never a sense of story. sure, there's a main quest, but you can't help but to realize that thousands of others have gone before you, and that the quest really means nothing in the longterm. In fact, you're probably PLing with a guy who's done it like fifty million times. I beat the boss. whoopee.
the reason that this happens, is because from a literal standpoint, there is no individuality between characters. essentially, people are just sitting in on the games of others. your character has beat the evil ice wizard. his has not. wtf? how many fricking ice-wizards are there? the only way to remedy this problem is to make a singular, cohesive, and continuing story that all players experience simultaneously.
umm... okay. let's pretend that was easy for a moment. so new players are to miss out on 30 or so in-game years of story?
well... yeah.
part of the reason that the games aren't engaging is that the characters themselves never really feel that they are the movers and shakers of the game world. this comes partly from the arbitrary multi-universe storylines and level caps. most players (or at least me) lose interest in mmorpgs because they feel like just another face in the crowd.
remember in galaxies when there was finally a jedi? that game got fun in a hurry. suddenly, there was a player-motivated series of events going down. people became engaged. the game became a little bit more of a real tangible world.
okay, let me give an example game that would cover my philosophy. excuse the cheese, writing off the cuff:
the reason why mmorpgs are hard to become motivated with is that there is never a sense of story. sure, there's a main quest, but you can't help but to realize that thousands of others have gone before you, and that the quest really means nothing in the longterm. In fact, you're probably PLing with a guy who's done it like fifty million times. I beat the boss. whoopee.
the reason that this happens, is because from a literal standpoint, there is no individuality between characters. essentially, people are just sitting in on the games of others. your character has beat the evil ice wizard. his has not. wtf? how many fricking ice-wizards are there? the only way to remedy this problem is to make a singular, cohesive, and continuing story that all players experience simultaneously.
umm... okay. let's pretend that was easy for a moment. so new players are to miss out on 30 or so in-game years of story?
well... yeah.
part of the reason that the games aren't engaging is that the characters themselves never really feel that they are the movers and shakers of the game world. this comes partly from the arbitrary multi-universe storylines and level caps. most players (or at least me) lose interest in mmorpgs because they feel like just another face in the crowd.
remember in galaxies when there was finally a jedi? that game got fun in a hurry. suddenly, there was a player-motivated series of events going down. people became engaged. the game became a little bit more of a real tangible world.
okay, let me give an example game that would cover my philosophy. excuse the cheese, writing off the cuff:
About the author
#42
One thing on the Perma Death thing (which was the original thread message). I wonder if anyone has played an old Pen and Paper RPG called Pendragon?
One of the things I liked about the game was it encouraged players to have families. ie. get a wife or husband have children etc etc
This encouraged several things, the earliest one was adventure threads. Off the top of my head these could be things like wooing of a spouse, the rescuing of a child, or perhaps confronting a child trying usurp your position.
When the player died, you had the option of creating a new character or taking on the role of one of your children. You could customise this in a computer game with little things like, same eye colour, or similar stats (eg."He is strong like his father") or NPCs would react to you based on what their relationship was to your parents.
I know this sounds simple but it creates need for the players to become involved in the world. To forge relationships. They have a vested interest in taking care of their family because that is their link to world. It also means people would have a greater emphasis on role-playing. Suddenly something is important in the game other than killing.
Or perhaps it means once a player has a family they need to make ends meet to support them. This could mean they join the army, go off adventuring, turn to a life of crime the possibilities are endless.
The other interesting offshoot could be that the younger generation is trained by the older. Lets say for a minute that my original character isn't dead, but he is 48. Bit long in the tooth to go wandering looking for monsters. I decide to put the character out to pasture and he tends the family farm. However his eldest son dreams of adventure so the rather than let him go into the wild with no training. The father could pass on some skills that could help him later in life. The son still cares about the family and has ties to it, especially until he can start his own.
I know these things are common sense but I think it could really add a sense of place in a game. I mean look at the Star Wars movies, the films would not be the same without the relationship between Luke and Obi Wan or Luke and Darth Vader.
Just my two cents worth - inflation adjusted ;-)
07/02/2006 (10:24 pm)
I've just been scrolling through the whole post and it is great thread. I've tried to look at most entries but not all so if this topic has been covered so I apologise in advance if I'm repeating something someone has said.One thing on the Perma Death thing (which was the original thread message). I wonder if anyone has played an old Pen and Paper RPG called Pendragon?
One of the things I liked about the game was it encouraged players to have families. ie. get a wife or husband have children etc etc
This encouraged several things, the earliest one was adventure threads. Off the top of my head these could be things like wooing of a spouse, the rescuing of a child, or perhaps confronting a child trying usurp your position.
When the player died, you had the option of creating a new character or taking on the role of one of your children. You could customise this in a computer game with little things like, same eye colour, or similar stats (eg."He is strong like his father") or NPCs would react to you based on what their relationship was to your parents.
I know this sounds simple but it creates need for the players to become involved in the world. To forge relationships. They have a vested interest in taking care of their family because that is their link to world. It also means people would have a greater emphasis on role-playing. Suddenly something is important in the game other than killing.
Or perhaps it means once a player has a family they need to make ends meet to support them. This could mean they join the army, go off adventuring, turn to a life of crime the possibilities are endless.
The other interesting offshoot could be that the younger generation is trained by the older. Lets say for a minute that my original character isn't dead, but he is 48. Bit long in the tooth to go wandering looking for monsters. I decide to put the character out to pasture and he tends the family farm. However his eldest son dreams of adventure so the rather than let him go into the wild with no training. The father could pass on some skills that could help him later in life. The son still cares about the family and has ties to it, especially until he can start his own.
I know these things are common sense but I think it could really add a sense of place in a game. I mean look at the Star Wars movies, the films would not be the same without the relationship between Luke and Obi Wan or Luke and Darth Vader.
Just my two cents worth - inflation adjusted ;-)
#43
That's why I've never been into them. You simply can't tell epic stories with thousands of protagonists.
I prefer the NWN model, i.e. "real" RPing where you have a small group of protagonists, and one or more referees who manage the world and give it life.
07/25/2006 (8:48 pm)
I haven't thought this through as much as you guys, but I think the problem is fundamental to MMORPGs and can't be "fixed."That's why I've never been into them. You simply can't tell epic stories with thousands of protagonists.
I prefer the NWN model, i.e. "real" RPing where you have a small group of protagonists, and one or more referees who manage the world and give it life.
#44
Sure you can. It's not a matter of whether it's possible, but how you can do it. There's a few different ways to skin this cat, and everyone has a solution tailored towards their needs, but it's definitely doable. The main problem is that up to now, MMO's are putting people in the position of being the sole protagonist, instead of being one of thousands of protagonists, like in reality. That's why everyone does the same quests. The universe is geared to revolved around you, but there's also 50,000 other you's out there doing the same thing, and that makes the sense of uniqueness in the MMO decline.
What you want to do is create a system that addresses the fact that there are 50,000 you's, and does not try to make every single one into the biggest, baddest hero out there. That's where PnP RPG's have MMO's beat, hands down.
07/26/2006 (8:44 am)
Quote:You simply can't tell epic stories with thousands of protagonists.
Sure you can. It's not a matter of whether it's possible, but how you can do it. There's a few different ways to skin this cat, and everyone has a solution tailored towards their needs, but it's definitely doable. The main problem is that up to now, MMO's are putting people in the position of being the sole protagonist, instead of being one of thousands of protagonists, like in reality. That's why everyone does the same quests. The universe is geared to revolved around you, but there's also 50,000 other you's out there doing the same thing, and that makes the sense of uniqueness in the MMO decline.
What you want to do is create a system that addresses the fact that there are 50,000 you's, and does not try to make every single one into the biggest, baddest hero out there. That's where PnP RPG's have MMO's beat, hands down.
#45
That's a completely different paradigm from telling epic stories. Epic stories have heroes. The hive has heroes too, but none rises above the hive, and they're chosen on merit (i.e., the best players). Players who want to be the hero in an epic story don't want to pay money to have a meritocracy put them in their place; they have real life for that.
Used to get that sort of feeling playing RtCW, where you recycle in and out every couple of minutes but you don't mind because you want your team to win, and that's the goal. It's entirely different from the epic story.
07/26/2006 (7:48 pm)
The way to get people into MMOs is by getting them to submerge themselves in the hive.That's a completely different paradigm from telling epic stories. Epic stories have heroes. The hive has heroes too, but none rises above the hive, and they're chosen on merit (i.e., the best players). Players who want to be the hero in an epic story don't want to pay money to have a meritocracy put them in their place; they have real life for that.
Used to get that sort of feeling playing RtCW, where you recycle in and out every couple of minutes but you don't mind because you want your team to win, and that's the goal. It's entirely different from the epic story.
#46
Since I have little technical skill to speak of in the field, I allocate much of my time theorizing about games, and what makes them more entertaining than real life. There are certain things games need (and certain things many MMORPGs are lacking), and I will attempt to make some sense in presenting how I see it.
Okay, why would a player pick a game? They want to be someone else, someone in a world more interesting than what we have here on this big boring globe. Preferrably, they want to be someone noteworthy. Traditionally, games are hinged around the player filling the shoes of the protagonist to go through the story. Overall, particularly in RPGs, what does the player want to do? Achieve something noteworthy.
On another note, they want to create the experience. I used to play lots of games and be perfectly satisfied with traveling on a nice, preset, story-based path, use this weapon here, use that spell there, then I played Morrowind. I don't even hold Final Fantasy in as high regard anymore (not to say that I don't like it, but it definitely has more of a cinematic feel, like a movie rather than a game). Morrowind has ruined me as a gamer. I want to be able to do anything, to use anything, to live in this world that, despite being crafted by human minds and hands, is as though enveloping myself in a separate life.
The main problem in single player, multiplayer, and even MMO games, is that however real the world feels, it won't if the interaction isn't there. Oblivion's Radiant AI is a step in the right direction, but it is still little more than "at this time, do this" as far as my observations can tell. Eliminating NPC's is a step in the right direction, but that still leaves the problem of how you will serve the players' needs without breaking willful suspension of disbelief (such as a PC telling noobs "the backstory for all of this is at www.blabla.com/story"). DON'T BREAK W.S.O.D. I don't insinuate here that you would intentionally, but you would be surprised how much the game doing it contributes to players also not taking the RP issue seriously.
Really, what I would put in as my overriding 2 cents in this is, if you want a player to feel like he/she is a part of your story, you need versatility. I know this creates a nightmare in the tech side, but work with me...think Morrowind. Your target audience needs to be as broad as possible. Do you know why more girls don't play games? At least from the ones I've talked to, it's because they see them as all the same. People get in groups and fight people. If you don't want to fight, but just make some other existence in this virtual world, why shouldn't you be able to? I know that you need to balance functionality between what your game does and what you can make your game do, but that's something to consider. A civilian class that can somehow help but not always necessarily take part in the action. Possibly a beaurocratic order? Government even? I know this has it's own implications and application difficulties, but something to think about.
I'm sorry I couldn't be more succinct, but without explanation, I would have just seemed like a random poster who says "that's good, that's bad." So for everyone who doesn't read my novel, a summation:
*******************************************************************************
SUMMATION!
1. Let the player feel they are achieving something, though they realize to achieve worldwide acclaim, they have to do something universally heroic (affecting a large portion of players/cities, etc.)
a. Consider if a player wants to become INFAMOUS as well (fame by having people hate him/her but
also gaining noteworthy achievements)
2. Let the player create the experience. If they want to jump from rooftop to rooftop instead of running down the street, let them.
3. Don't break WSOD. And discourage players from doing it as well. How strictly this is enforced is at the discretion of the Admins.
4. Have something for everyone. Diplomacy instead of hostility. While this might not work for all needs (such as hostile Fallen troops), there are always civil matters that need attending, whether interpersonal or leadership.
That's the best advice I can give, and I'm sure there's more, but just going through writing it I probably missed it. Look at the state of the real world, and try to append your story onto that, if that makes any real sense. Consider the normal people, the heroic people, the underdogs, and the criminals.
And I applaud your intention to make the story more enveloping than the typical MMORPG (which is the downfall of even the 'greats' *ahem*worldofwarcraft*ahem*). I can't stress enough, though, that you also can't make it just a 'line-in-the-sand' thing like with Guild Wars, either. What do I care where the sides are ranked if they only control imaginary territory that I can't even visit? Which is why PvP is sometimes a good thing, because if you make Fallen troops occupy a city, then they should be sentient enough to fortify, and even vandalize if they want, so that when our heroes come and reclaim it, there is an indelible mark on the face of the city until fixed. Can you imagine how intense and infuriating it would be to be sieging a Fallen-occupied city and see the tower at the center of the city that signifies...oh, I don't know, the survivors of the Massacre of 2032...come falling to the ground? And that's just one example. Make everything in the game feel important to the player, and you will have the player feeling like they are an important part of preserving it.
********************************************************************************
Sorry about the long post, but I lack the skill to be concise. One last note, I would HIGHLY recommend, if you want to make the story feel like it has a connection to the player, to make this first person. I have never, ever felt a connection that I was the character in any third-person game. These sorts of games are much more like observing and indirectly controlling the actions of your avatar. In addition, I have yet to really feel like the system in a third person game is more based on skill that pure stat-building. What kind of system could you have with gun combat other than pure point-and-click? When I envision 3PP ranged combat, a chill runs down my spine.
But then again, I suppose it's my idiosyncracy that turn-based always feels like chess.
I hope dragging oneself through this provides at least some insight.
07/27/2006 (1:09 am)
Okay, I have to chime in, though a bit late.Since I have little technical skill to speak of in the field, I allocate much of my time theorizing about games, and what makes them more entertaining than real life. There are certain things games need (and certain things many MMORPGs are lacking), and I will attempt to make some sense in presenting how I see it.
Okay, why would a player pick a game? They want to be someone else, someone in a world more interesting than what we have here on this big boring globe. Preferrably, they want to be someone noteworthy. Traditionally, games are hinged around the player filling the shoes of the protagonist to go through the story. Overall, particularly in RPGs, what does the player want to do? Achieve something noteworthy.
On another note, they want to create the experience. I used to play lots of games and be perfectly satisfied with traveling on a nice, preset, story-based path, use this weapon here, use that spell there, then I played Morrowind. I don't even hold Final Fantasy in as high regard anymore (not to say that I don't like it, but it definitely has more of a cinematic feel, like a movie rather than a game). Morrowind has ruined me as a gamer. I want to be able to do anything, to use anything, to live in this world that, despite being crafted by human minds and hands, is as though enveloping myself in a separate life.
The main problem in single player, multiplayer, and even MMO games, is that however real the world feels, it won't if the interaction isn't there. Oblivion's Radiant AI is a step in the right direction, but it is still little more than "at this time, do this" as far as my observations can tell. Eliminating NPC's is a step in the right direction, but that still leaves the problem of how you will serve the players' needs without breaking willful suspension of disbelief (such as a PC telling noobs "the backstory for all of this is at www.blabla.com/story"). DON'T BREAK W.S.O.D. I don't insinuate here that you would intentionally, but you would be surprised how much the game doing it contributes to players also not taking the RP issue seriously.
Really, what I would put in as my overriding 2 cents in this is, if you want a player to feel like he/she is a part of your story, you need versatility. I know this creates a nightmare in the tech side, but work with me...think Morrowind. Your target audience needs to be as broad as possible. Do you know why more girls don't play games? At least from the ones I've talked to, it's because they see them as all the same. People get in groups and fight people. If you don't want to fight, but just make some other existence in this virtual world, why shouldn't you be able to? I know that you need to balance functionality between what your game does and what you can make your game do, but that's something to consider. A civilian class that can somehow help but not always necessarily take part in the action. Possibly a beaurocratic order? Government even? I know this has it's own implications and application difficulties, but something to think about.
I'm sorry I couldn't be more succinct, but without explanation, I would have just seemed like a random poster who says "that's good, that's bad." So for everyone who doesn't read my novel, a summation:
*******************************************************************************
SUMMATION!
1. Let the player feel they are achieving something, though they realize to achieve worldwide acclaim, they have to do something universally heroic (affecting a large portion of players/cities, etc.)
a. Consider if a player wants to become INFAMOUS as well (fame by having people hate him/her but
also gaining noteworthy achievements)
2. Let the player create the experience. If they want to jump from rooftop to rooftop instead of running down the street, let them.
3. Don't break WSOD. And discourage players from doing it as well. How strictly this is enforced is at the discretion of the Admins.
4. Have something for everyone. Diplomacy instead of hostility. While this might not work for all needs (such as hostile Fallen troops), there are always civil matters that need attending, whether interpersonal or leadership.
That's the best advice I can give, and I'm sure there's more, but just going through writing it I probably missed it. Look at the state of the real world, and try to append your story onto that, if that makes any real sense. Consider the normal people, the heroic people, the underdogs, and the criminals.
And I applaud your intention to make the story more enveloping than the typical MMORPG (which is the downfall of even the 'greats' *ahem*worldofwarcraft*ahem*). I can't stress enough, though, that you also can't make it just a 'line-in-the-sand' thing like with Guild Wars, either. What do I care where the sides are ranked if they only control imaginary territory that I can't even visit? Which is why PvP is sometimes a good thing, because if you make Fallen troops occupy a city, then they should be sentient enough to fortify, and even vandalize if they want, so that when our heroes come and reclaim it, there is an indelible mark on the face of the city until fixed. Can you imagine how intense and infuriating it would be to be sieging a Fallen-occupied city and see the tower at the center of the city that signifies...oh, I don't know, the survivors of the Massacre of 2032...come falling to the ground? And that's just one example. Make everything in the game feel important to the player, and you will have the player feeling like they are an important part of preserving it.
********************************************************************************
Sorry about the long post, but I lack the skill to be concise. One last note, I would HIGHLY recommend, if you want to make the story feel like it has a connection to the player, to make this first person. I have never, ever felt a connection that I was the character in any third-person game. These sorts of games are much more like observing and indirectly controlling the actions of your avatar. In addition, I have yet to really feel like the system in a third person game is more based on skill that pure stat-building. What kind of system could you have with gun combat other than pure point-and-click? When I envision 3PP ranged combat, a chill runs down my spine.
But then again, I suppose it's my idiosyncracy that turn-based always feels like chess.
I hope dragging oneself through this provides at least some insight.
#47
PD is possible if the game design is such that
dying provides the creation of a player with more growth potential
not retaining exp or posessions just more potential
example D&D type generation or any game based on stats
where based rolled stats can be augmented
after death you may end up with better top end development
of 1 or more stats keys to combat
in this example dying would force a start over condition with a better
end result .. retaining anything from previous char would invalidate
the PD condition
perhaps making parts of the game dependant on reborn chars would
lessen the "fear" of PD
at some point in any game PD becomes a burden if you have months invested
and can be killed in seconds
Shadowbane dex/dwarf assassin you get up go to refill your coffee come back your dead
EVE you invest 30 days of real life aquiring 1 level in one of many possible skills
if you lose that in 10 seconds and have to reinvest another 30 days (1 mo subscription cost)
perhaps you lose intrest or desire
NERFs many developers employ nerfing chars skills and abilities as part of game balancing
this in turn irratates those who are effected by the changes
best answer is not go overboard with powers in the first place stay balanced as it develops
best possible analogy
you work for 20 hrs a week and get "X" amount of income
you work for 40 hrs a week and still get "X" amount of income
how many people do you think would show up for work after 20 hrs a week?
and lastly in most/many MMO's a world is created where people are supposed to be
able to rise to EPIC porportions
take SWG instead of being LUKE or Darth Vader your more like Uncle Owen
no I dont think the game would better if there were 350,000 Luke Skywalkers running around
the point is in order for the game to work there has to be the possibilty of being GREAT
with work / time / skill
To have all the key characters in game be NPC based
or storyline references just diminishes the feel of importance of actual paying/playing people
People play MMO's to feel better to feel as though in real life they may be low on totem pole
or feel that way
in their alternate reality they are upper eschelon or reaching thier goal
People play MMO's to be part of a crowd .. otherwise single player games would fill their needs
just offering a single player game with multiplayer chat and guilds does not come close to
meeting that need.. after the new terrain and music becomes old or familiar the game needs a game
or migration of players will set in fast.
basically to make PD work you first need a game enviroment where death is possible but not
likely to occur if you blink.
07/28/2006 (8:52 am)
Just a few commentsPD is possible if the game design is such that
dying provides the creation of a player with more growth potential
not retaining exp or posessions just more potential
example D&D type generation or any game based on stats
where based rolled stats can be augmented
after death you may end up with better top end development
of 1 or more stats keys to combat
in this example dying would force a start over condition with a better
end result .. retaining anything from previous char would invalidate
the PD condition
perhaps making parts of the game dependant on reborn chars would
lessen the "fear" of PD
at some point in any game PD becomes a burden if you have months invested
and can be killed in seconds
Shadowbane dex/dwarf assassin you get up go to refill your coffee come back your dead
EVE you invest 30 days of real life aquiring 1 level in one of many possible skills
if you lose that in 10 seconds and have to reinvest another 30 days (1 mo subscription cost)
perhaps you lose intrest or desire
NERFs many developers employ nerfing chars skills and abilities as part of game balancing
this in turn irratates those who are effected by the changes
best answer is not go overboard with powers in the first place stay balanced as it develops
best possible analogy
you work for 20 hrs a week and get "X" amount of income
you work for 40 hrs a week and still get "X" amount of income
how many people do you think would show up for work after 20 hrs a week?
and lastly in most/many MMO's a world is created where people are supposed to be
able to rise to EPIC porportions
take SWG instead of being LUKE or Darth Vader your more like Uncle Owen
no I dont think the game would better if there were 350,000 Luke Skywalkers running around
the point is in order for the game to work there has to be the possibilty of being GREAT
with work / time / skill
To have all the key characters in game be NPC based
or storyline references just diminishes the feel of importance of actual paying/playing people
People play MMO's to feel better to feel as though in real life they may be low on totem pole
or feel that way
in their alternate reality they are upper eschelon or reaching thier goal
People play MMO's to be part of a crowd .. otherwise single player games would fill their needs
just offering a single player game with multiplayer chat and guilds does not come close to
meeting that need.. after the new terrain and music becomes old or familiar the game needs a game
or migration of players will set in fast.
basically to make PD work you first need a game enviroment where death is possible but not
likely to occur if you blink.
#48
there sort of isn't supposed to be individuality between characters, although I agree it is sometimes stupid due to repetativeness. there isn't supposed to be individualality because any game where you fight and kill things is basically a war or maybe a feudal era of sorts. that means you don't really get too attached to your opponents or commrads because they could "go" at any second. But, there IS a fairly straightforward way to implement 'realism' and thus avoiding WTF's. Even though you're not supposed to get too attached to characters, there ARE various personality templates you can fit your friends and enemys into. If you consider this 'ice-wizard' an infamous character similar to an infamous dictator in real life terms, then when you kill him "another" would take his place. Maybe that other would be a more homicidal ice-wizard that runs at you and wants you for breakfast. Maybe the next one prefers to run and sends his guards to attack you. Maybe the one after that doesn't even like ice magic and prefers fire or even hand-to-hand combat.... See where I'm going with this?
08/06/2006 (8:18 pm)
Quote:the reason that this happens, is because from a literal standpoint, there is no individuality between characters. essentially, people are just sitting in on the games of others. your character has beat the evil ice wizard. his has not. wtf? how many fricking ice-wizards are there? the only way to remedy this problem is to make a singular, cohesive, and continuing story that all players experience simultaneously.
Quote:umm... okay. let's pretend that was easy for a moment.
there sort of isn't supposed to be individuality between characters, although I agree it is sometimes stupid due to repetativeness. there isn't supposed to be individualality because any game where you fight and kill things is basically a war or maybe a feudal era of sorts. that means you don't really get too attached to your opponents or commrads because they could "go" at any second. But, there IS a fairly straightforward way to implement 'realism' and thus avoiding WTF's. Even though you're not supposed to get too attached to characters, there ARE various personality templates you can fit your friends and enemys into. If you consider this 'ice-wizard' an infamous character similar to an infamous dictator in real life terms, then when you kill him "another" would take his place. Maybe that other would be a more homicidal ice-wizard that runs at you and wants you for breakfast. Maybe the next one prefers to run and sends his guards to attack you. Maybe the one after that doesn't even like ice magic and prefers fire or even hand-to-hand combat.... See where I'm going with this?
#49
link: http://www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=48928
simply it's just that everything is player-driven. If you want to make a city, then go ahead!
And i mean it, CHECK IT OUT!
08/10/2006 (4:53 am)
Check out my post, called A MMO/MMORPG game completely player-runlink: http://www.garagegames.com/mg/forums/result.thread.php?qt=48928
simply it's just that everything is player-driven. If you want to make a city, then go ahead!
And i mean it, CHECK IT OUT!
#50
Any thoughts?
08/30/2006 (8:14 am)
I have been kicking around an idea for an aging process on death. The character does not "age" past 21 (or physical peak) until they die. eg. the only way to get old is to "die". All characters would have min stats and max stats that are log() based thus max stat is unreachable but gain does slow down (which is how it is in reality. A scientist does not stop learning after he has learned XYZ his learning just slows down) So with every posative action the character is pushed farther to the right on that log function and on every death past age 21 or whatever the log function moves down slightly which decreases the max of the log function permanently. thus a character os age 99 would be as frail as a 12 year old in game except for the fortune and knowledge gained through his travels. The older more frail individuals could keep their mental ability which is basically how wizards in traditional games are. Frail but full of knowledge.Any thoughts?
#51
DEATH = NO loss of anything, However, with the upper story line given with the fallen, has me intriegued... I gave it some thaught, The creature(s) stand over the corspe of the fallen warrior, place one of thier seeds within the back of your neck... It proceeds to link up to your mind and sends pulses of energy through to the brain that kick start it... Hmmm Something odd is happening, You begin to pick yourself up off the ground then slump to your knees holding your head as the battle continues within your mind for control of the body... Since you have one of these creatures inside you, the others move around you and do not attack as they move towards the front lines... Then the screen changes, you have no weapons, the creature you are now about to fight within your mind is an 8 foot tall spider like creature...
Since everyone is the way they are in life, no true levels, it is a true battle of skills... My idea is enough to bring tears to any any players eyes when they die, then get jerked around and suddenly hope of comming back to life.. At this point, if the player disconnects from the server, the charecter will be controlled by the server, retreating as the "enemies" draw near. Mentall conditions of the creature not in full control draw back away from humans, as the human side not in full control draws away from the creatures...
Once the creature is defeated, the creature expells through a small opening in the back of the neck and dies. If the creature wins, the human conciousness is widrawn for a piriod of time, Warning, if you disconnect at this time, you could be getting your body killed, as the creature would have full control over the body and will march right into combat. Your concoiusness will revive after 15 minutes of sollitary confinement. A "lucky shot" from low powered weapon, can release the hold the creature has on the human, and effectivly kill the creature while the host only has a bullet wound in thier neck... (This will prove to be most effective in killing the host 99% of the time.)
Basically, yes, It's a death, However this is my reaction to, "My charecter is perminently dead!" ... "I quit!"... So in effect, yes, that charecter is dead, however, your next charecter stumbles accross the remains of the corpse, and "inharents" all the items. 1) this will make it easier the next time around for the charecter, 2) you will already have a base as to how the game is played, 3) In death, you are sent back to boot camp. 4) You will be able to use the same name, or another name.
There should be NO drops from the creatures, or the creatures that they have taken control of, as these creatures mature and control the body, the body is the weapon, and does not worry about any clothing... except what they were wearing when control was gained.
You should get an hourly pay while you are online, that way... say, I was away for 6 months, and now I am rich! (personal clocked times you are online, and every hour of play time adds x amount of data chits.) Dependent apon rank.
If you can look at, I recomend the same or simular map spicing as the original Dungeon Siege, where the map section loads prior to reaching the next map, then items, people, creatures are loaded in just before you get to the map splice, This would even allow for travel accross to different servers possiable. All it needs to know when you start playing, is, "Where is your main charecter born at?" Your charecter dies on a different server, your next is born where you died (Server wise) compleate with the old items and chits. Map section currently loaded, All maps right around the one in you are in. That way ALL landscapes are seen in the emmediate area. As you move into a section, the furthest ones away unload, then load the next closest maps, maintaining a long distance sight of the area ahead. In effect this will reduce space used on both the HD, and RAM, tho prossessor and video card will be going strong. a game of this magnatude should require at least a 1.7 ghz prossessor, and a 128 MB Video Card with at least 500 MB RAM, and 20 MB HD space (Minimum install),to 2g HD Space(Max install), from a CD, or CD set, with space for 500 - 1500 MB updates pirodically, via CDs.
An undertaking of this endevour will easilly become a full time job. As the game progresses, you will need to continuously think of new story lines to keep the players in tune with the game, and maintain a level of FUN to it.
A multitude of weapons from anceint to modern weapons should be available to the players.
Good luck.
09/19/2006 (12:11 am)
New to this, and full of ideas...DEATH = NO loss of anything, However, with the upper story line given with the fallen, has me intriegued... I gave it some thaught, The creature(s) stand over the corspe of the fallen warrior, place one of thier seeds within the back of your neck... It proceeds to link up to your mind and sends pulses of energy through to the brain that kick start it... Hmmm Something odd is happening, You begin to pick yourself up off the ground then slump to your knees holding your head as the battle continues within your mind for control of the body... Since you have one of these creatures inside you, the others move around you and do not attack as they move towards the front lines... Then the screen changes, you have no weapons, the creature you are now about to fight within your mind is an 8 foot tall spider like creature...
Since everyone is the way they are in life, no true levels, it is a true battle of skills... My idea is enough to bring tears to any any players eyes when they die, then get jerked around and suddenly hope of comming back to life.. At this point, if the player disconnects from the server, the charecter will be controlled by the server, retreating as the "enemies" draw near. Mentall conditions of the creature not in full control draw back away from humans, as the human side not in full control draws away from the creatures...
Once the creature is defeated, the creature expells through a small opening in the back of the neck and dies. If the creature wins, the human conciousness is widrawn for a piriod of time, Warning, if you disconnect at this time, you could be getting your body killed, as the creature would have full control over the body and will march right into combat. Your concoiusness will revive after 15 minutes of sollitary confinement. A "lucky shot" from low powered weapon, can release the hold the creature has on the human, and effectivly kill the creature while the host only has a bullet wound in thier neck... (This will prove to be most effective in killing the host 99% of the time.)
Basically, yes, It's a death, However this is my reaction to, "My charecter is perminently dead!" ... "I quit!"... So in effect, yes, that charecter is dead, however, your next charecter stumbles accross the remains of the corpse, and "inharents" all the items. 1) this will make it easier the next time around for the charecter, 2) you will already have a base as to how the game is played, 3) In death, you are sent back to boot camp. 4) You will be able to use the same name, or another name.
There should be NO drops from the creatures, or the creatures that they have taken control of, as these creatures mature and control the body, the body is the weapon, and does not worry about any clothing... except what they were wearing when control was gained.
You should get an hourly pay while you are online, that way... say, I was away for 6 months, and now I am rich! (personal clocked times you are online, and every hour of play time adds x amount of data chits.) Dependent apon rank.
If you can look at, I recomend the same or simular map spicing as the original Dungeon Siege, where the map section loads prior to reaching the next map, then items, people, creatures are loaded in just before you get to the map splice, This would even allow for travel accross to different servers possiable. All it needs to know when you start playing, is, "Where is your main charecter born at?" Your charecter dies on a different server, your next is born where you died (Server wise) compleate with the old items and chits. Map section currently loaded, All maps right around the one in you are in. That way ALL landscapes are seen in the emmediate area. As you move into a section, the furthest ones away unload, then load the next closest maps, maintaining a long distance sight of the area ahead. In effect this will reduce space used on both the HD, and RAM, tho prossessor and video card will be going strong. a game of this magnatude should require at least a 1.7 ghz prossessor, and a 128 MB Video Card with at least 500 MB RAM, and 20 MB HD space (Minimum install),to 2g HD Space(Max install), from a CD, or CD set, with space for 500 - 1500 MB updates pirodically, via CDs.
An undertaking of this endevour will easilly become a full time job. As the game progresses, you will need to continuously think of new story lines to keep the players in tune with the game, and maintain a level of FUN to it.
A multitude of weapons from anceint to modern weapons should be available to the players.
Good luck.
#52
Although, the only real way that would work is if you made the game very action/twitch heavy so it still maintained a sence of personal progression in the form of personal skills & repetative practice. Perhaps a meta-xp system that unlocked new classes and new starting gear to minimise that lowbie grind, maybe a little of both.
Although, in the end I guess that wouldn't really be an MMO*RPG*, more of an MMOFPS or some such.
10/02/2006 (8:06 am)
I'd gladly step up to and pay to play an MMO game where my character could really truly die. As long as it wasn't an uber RPG heavy system with 50+ levels and level based content, that'd just be fustrating. But a world that evolved and changed around the many most-likely-very-short lives of my characters would certainly provide a new experience.Although, the only real way that would work is if you made the game very action/twitch heavy so it still maintained a sence of personal progression in the form of personal skills & repetative practice. Perhaps a meta-xp system that unlocked new classes and new starting gear to minimise that lowbie grind, maybe a little of both.
Although, in the end I guess that wouldn't really be an MMO*RPG*, more of an MMOFPS or some such.
#53
IDEAS ARE THERE - noone will share his ideas for a really coool game!!!
Information is limited and so is power of pcs!
massive multiplayers is not teh final phase!!! It's temporary and its only at its very beginning phase! And the only reason why eveyrone thinks eveyrthing si as boring as it gets is :
1. You ve been playing too much: time to make instead of playing and talking!
2. You want to get surprised: Well u better then take 3000 Eur and try visit atleast 10 countries in EU in 20 days. Make it a sex trip or a drug trip or a collect each countries best games trip!
I'll be honest I and many others know what should be done - its just we don't say it coz we r afraid that others steal ideas: we live in a material world!!! Companies will eat ur heart to get ur idea or to bury it in the long archives of non-to-coming-to-reality folders. what this massive multiplayer movement really needs is
WE NEED ENGINES THAT ALLOW MAKING MULTIPLAYERS with as little coding as possible: I'm no programmer and I'm so pissed off: just started C++ yesterday and bought Torque a half week ago. I stick to Torque coz I can feel the trend toward it: this is the most successful company (ive done researcha nd uve done it and that's why u r here) and u know u just have to wait or employ programmers and then all ur ideas gonna come up! If garagegames won't move toward massive multiplayer it will be a fading light.
I wish i was given a package! A package that is a dream of my life!
10/19/2006 (10:48 pm)
Hmmmm I see You r discussing many pretty coool ideas here: but u r forgettingIDEAS ARE THERE - noone will share his ideas for a really coool game!!!
Information is limited and so is power of pcs!
massive multiplayers is not teh final phase!!! It's temporary and its only at its very beginning phase! And the only reason why eveyrone thinks eveyrthing si as boring as it gets is :
1. You ve been playing too much: time to make instead of playing and talking!
2. You want to get surprised: Well u better then take 3000 Eur and try visit atleast 10 countries in EU in 20 days. Make it a sex trip or a drug trip or a collect each countries best games trip!
I'll be honest I and many others know what should be done - its just we don't say it coz we r afraid that others steal ideas: we live in a material world!!! Companies will eat ur heart to get ur idea or to bury it in the long archives of non-to-coming-to-reality folders. what this massive multiplayer movement really needs is
WE NEED ENGINES THAT ALLOW MAKING MULTIPLAYERS with as little coding as possible: I'm no programmer and I'm so pissed off: just started C++ yesterday and bought Torque a half week ago. I stick to Torque coz I can feel the trend toward it: this is the most successful company (ive done researcha nd uve done it and that's why u r here) and u know u just have to wait or employ programmers and then all ur ideas gonna come up! If garagegames won't move toward massive multiplayer it will be a fading light.
I wish i was given a package! A package that is a dream of my life!
#54
Only people who have no clear undestanding of the game development process thinks like this. Ideas are worth absolutely nothing. It's implementation that holds the gold.
Anyone can say "Gee, I wish there was an MMO out there where you could talk to NPC's like it was the real world", but that idea is worth absolutely nothing- even if you know how to implement it- unless your implementation rocks. World of Warcraft is currently the biggest MMO in the world right now, and it has nothing to do with ideas. They are masters at making minimal interfaces and gameplay elements so that you even forget that the poly counts are probably half that of other MMO's.
Honestly, there's nothing that MMO's can bring to the table that are newer than what some GM did in his basement in the 70's with Chainmail or D&D...
The job for those who want to make cutting edge MMO's is how to translate those things to a realtime RPG in the best way.
And as for:
Implementing original ideas and/or features in an engine is pretty much antithema to that quote. There are engines out there that let you do that, to be sure, but they don't allow for much originality in gameplay mechanics. If you want a stock car, go to a dealer, but if you want it to become a tank, you might have to custom-build a few parts.
10/23/2006 (5:37 am)
Quote:IDEAS ARE THERE - noone will share his ideas for a really coool game!!!
Only people who have no clear undestanding of the game development process thinks like this. Ideas are worth absolutely nothing. It's implementation that holds the gold.
Anyone can say "Gee, I wish there was an MMO out there where you could talk to NPC's like it was the real world", but that idea is worth absolutely nothing- even if you know how to implement it- unless your implementation rocks. World of Warcraft is currently the biggest MMO in the world right now, and it has nothing to do with ideas. They are masters at making minimal interfaces and gameplay elements so that you even forget that the poly counts are probably half that of other MMO's.
Honestly, there's nothing that MMO's can bring to the table that are newer than what some GM did in his basement in the 70's with Chainmail or D&D...
The job for those who want to make cutting edge MMO's is how to translate those things to a realtime RPG in the best way.
And as for:
Quote:WE NEED ENGINES THAT ALLOW MAKING MULTIPLAYERS with as little coding as possible
Implementing original ideas and/or features in an engine is pretty much antithema to that quote. There are engines out there that let you do that, to be sure, but they don't allow for much originality in gameplay mechanics. If you want a stock car, go to a dealer, but if you want it to become a tank, you might have to custom-build a few parts.
#55
In keeping with that metaphor:
who would disrespect a Lamborghini for being stock? It would get more respect than a ghetto tank possibly made by Taliban forces. =)
P.S.
There's plenty of mods for games that blow the original game out of the water, if not ALL of them. Just slap down some over the top, player-made textures and tweek the game balance and voila, a superior game.
10/23/2006 (10:39 pm)
Quote:Implementing original ideas and/or features in an engine is pretty much antithema to that quote. There are engines out there that let you do that, to be sure, but they don't allow for much originality in gameplay mechanics. If you want a stock car, go to a dealer, but if you want it to become a tank, you might have to custom-build a few parts.
In keeping with that metaphor:
who would disrespect a Lamborghini for being stock? It would get more respect than a ghetto tank possibly made by Taliban forces. =)
P.S.
There's plenty of mods for games that blow the original game out of the water, if not ALL of them. Just slap down some over the top, player-made textures and tweek the game balance and voila, a superior game.
#56
That misses the point entirely. A tank is not a car (and I wouldn't have my money on the Lamborghini in that fight- unless it was to see who could get away from who the fastest). The point is that if you want to change functionality to get something truly original, you will need to know programming because chances are that the engine doesn't do what you want it to natively. Don't believe me? Go look at any engine's message boards. It's the same story everywhere.
That also misses the point. There are plenty of mods out there better than the original game, yes. But, the fact is, tweaking the game balance, throwing new artwork at it, and changing missions still only makes it a mod. The point was, and is, that if you want to create new functionality in a game, then you need to change source code. You cannot mod Halflife into WoW without getting into the source to do certain things.
Same with Torque. You need to have the source code in order to do certain things. Selecting objects was not stock in the engine, and neither was ODBC/SQL/MySQL support. That all required changes to the source code. Other engines, geared more or completely towards MMO's would have much less that needed to be touched in source code, but unless you were working totally within the framework of what the engine was designed to do, then you would need to make changes. It's just a fact, and the reason why every game house has programmers, whether they rolled their own engine or not.
edit: The Taliban don't make tanks :p heheh...
10/24/2006 (5:37 am)
Quote:who would disrespect a Lamborghini for being stock? It would get more respect than a ghetto tank possibly made by Taliban forces. =)
That misses the point entirely. A tank is not a car (and I wouldn't have my money on the Lamborghini in that fight- unless it was to see who could get away from who the fastest). The point is that if you want to change functionality to get something truly original, you will need to know programming because chances are that the engine doesn't do what you want it to natively. Don't believe me? Go look at any engine's message boards. It's the same story everywhere.
Quote:There's plenty of mods for games that blow the original game out of the water, if not ALL of them. Just slap down some over the top, player-made textures and tweek the game balance and voila, a superior game.
That also misses the point. There are plenty of mods out there better than the original game, yes. But, the fact is, tweaking the game balance, throwing new artwork at it, and changing missions still only makes it a mod. The point was, and is, that if you want to create new functionality in a game, then you need to change source code. You cannot mod Halflife into WoW without getting into the source to do certain things.
Same with Torque. You need to have the source code in order to do certain things. Selecting objects was not stock in the engine, and neither was ODBC/SQL/MySQL support. That all required changes to the source code. Other engines, geared more or completely towards MMO's would have much less that needed to be touched in source code, but unless you were working totally within the framework of what the engine was designed to do, then you would need to make changes. It's just a fact, and the reason why every game house has programmers, whether they rolled their own engine or not.
edit: The Taliban don't make tanks :p heheh...
#57
10/24/2006 (12:22 pm)
No wonder there's an entire forum room just for game ideas here. You have programmers who care more about impressing their boss with their m@D sK1LLz than getting into the player's heads to discover it's not what you have to work with, its how you use it. Have you ever heard anyone say I don't like Pong because it doesn't have rounded edges on the ball and the controls don't quite feel like a ping pong paddle? ...
#58
10/24/2006 (1:37 pm)
You're all of 16, aren't you?
#59
Now as the games went on they got worse EQ was ok but it started the whole grinding phenomenon where you had to sit in the same dungeon sometimes for weeks to get any progress or that one item everyone needed to be good. AC came out and helped back a little no pvp but the battles were bigger the land was huge there were so many armor pieces you couldn't keep track and each one came in every shade so you could do what I did and only wear gold armor to stand out. Skills weren't a class based system so peopel were more individual and AC did do abotu once a month an event for people to discover and beat this was fun. Then it was all downhill DaOC had nothing no story no individuality at all, EQII too tedious WoW 8 million of the same exact guy because that exact skill combo is the best no arguements and if you don't use it you get destroyed but it's the most popular mmorpg ever, why?
Well I think the answer is simple now mmorpg arn't for the crowd who eventually loved them and liked the individualism and social aspect now they're about action let people level up fast and then grind for the best items and run around killing everyone else with no consequences for the feeling of power. This is fun for that specific crowd but to the true mmorpg crowd it's a big let down
Would I hate a game that had perma death? not if it did it in some sort of new way that didn't represent starting over. Maybe when you die you go on a spirtual quest to learn new aspects of the world and your spirit gets released in a new body now starting stronger then you could have ever originally started, or each new recycle you get a different type of skill styles not possible before, new forms of magic that you discovered in your spiritual quest or something of the sort, but of course make perma death a very rare case that only high levels who have grinded to the end and are bored could face so only the people who have gone all the way through can start in this new style keeping the game fresh.
MMORPGS are passion of mine and I've been saddened by their lack of creativity of late, I can even deal with a bug filled game if it shows a great sense of new knowing the bugs will eventually be fixed but a game bug free at launch that is same old same old is no loner appealing.
More story is good, not in the way that it bores you to death if you don't want to read everything but rather in the way that it unfolds around you without you even realising it, little things here and there from npcs that open your eyes to new things, and yes finally make the players and guilds have a real effect not the we battled and control the tower this week and then battle next week to see who controls it then, actually change things change the npc structure change the actual face of the earth, we're at a point in technology where it's possible but no company wants to put in the time.
Would love to see a point where it's not the same old attack movements either, where although you still choose your attacks they match the graphics between you and the enemies so you actually hit it and it actually responds swords actuall bang off each other in a defense.
Good topic though
10/24/2006 (6:16 pm)
Although I stopped reading all the replies half way through the list I did have some things to add I have played mmorpgs since the Realm, I've played probably 80% of the large ones that have come out UO AC EQ EQII WoW AO DaOC WoW LII and on and on. One thing I have seen is that the game have gotten worse as they have become more popular. UO tried to break new ground it is still my favorite I had played to this day and I started on day 1. Everything was possible you could have a house, you could break into someone's house if you were a master theif you could kill people anytime you wanted and loot them, others could come up and loot while you were looting. Since everything was possible you'd think there would be chaos but there wasn't since penalties were high (you died everything on you got looted so you needed spare gear) people formed a sense of rules. People didn't just randomly tk, thieves were known and watched and a whole society formed. The creators stage random events they launched an undead attack on the most popular player hang out and then build a story of an evil necromancer who was leading these attacks people had to work together to find and kill him, then he was gone forever. Everything was fresh. Now as the games went on they got worse EQ was ok but it started the whole grinding phenomenon where you had to sit in the same dungeon sometimes for weeks to get any progress or that one item everyone needed to be good. AC came out and helped back a little no pvp but the battles were bigger the land was huge there were so many armor pieces you couldn't keep track and each one came in every shade so you could do what I did and only wear gold armor to stand out. Skills weren't a class based system so peopel were more individual and AC did do abotu once a month an event for people to discover and beat this was fun. Then it was all downhill DaOC had nothing no story no individuality at all, EQII too tedious WoW 8 million of the same exact guy because that exact skill combo is the best no arguements and if you don't use it you get destroyed but it's the most popular mmorpg ever, why?
Well I think the answer is simple now mmorpg arn't for the crowd who eventually loved them and liked the individualism and social aspect now they're about action let people level up fast and then grind for the best items and run around killing everyone else with no consequences for the feeling of power. This is fun for that specific crowd but to the true mmorpg crowd it's a big let down
Would I hate a game that had perma death? not if it did it in some sort of new way that didn't represent starting over. Maybe when you die you go on a spirtual quest to learn new aspects of the world and your spirit gets released in a new body now starting stronger then you could have ever originally started, or each new recycle you get a different type of skill styles not possible before, new forms of magic that you discovered in your spiritual quest or something of the sort, but of course make perma death a very rare case that only high levels who have grinded to the end and are bored could face so only the people who have gone all the way through can start in this new style keeping the game fresh.
MMORPGS are passion of mine and I've been saddened by their lack of creativity of late, I can even deal with a bug filled game if it shows a great sense of new knowing the bugs will eventually be fixed but a game bug free at launch that is same old same old is no loner appealing.
More story is good, not in the way that it bores you to death if you don't want to read everything but rather in the way that it unfolds around you without you even realising it, little things here and there from npcs that open your eyes to new things, and yes finally make the players and guilds have a real effect not the we battled and control the tower this week and then battle next week to see who controls it then, actually change things change the npc structure change the actual face of the earth, we're at a point in technology where it's possible but no company wants to put in the time.
Would love to see a point where it's not the same old attack movements either, where although you still choose your attacks they match the graphics between you and the enemies so you actually hit it and it actually responds swords actuall bang off each other in a defense.
Good topic though
#60
10/27/2006 (5:01 pm)
Ted, I hear you and feel your frustrations. I wish you would bring back your roundtable discussions. Those were the best.
Torque Owner Kimmy Gorden
But I AM designing it all-ATM.
It works like this:
The setting is a war- one faction against another. The war is "won" once all the planets are controlled by one side or another.
A planet is controlled by the side that has the vast majority of cities on that planet (size of the cities may come into play here).
Cities will contribute to the war effort and have value depending on their size, health, production, wealth, safety, defence, corruption-etc. All of that will depend on what structures are in the city (hospital, police stations, bases, casinos, drug-rings, jails- etc).
NPC cities (run by an NPC mayor) will add structures, make NPC movements and tax- depending on the overall picture.
For example: An NPC city that has a large rival city too close to it will raise its defenses- or even prepare and launch an attack on said city.
Players contribute on several levels-
-They can join a faction and get assigned to a base in a city or join a hospital in that city- or start a drug-ring or casino and try to duck the law.
- As they build their character- they earn the permission to start their own police department, hospital or base- etc. Which they can add to the city at the NPC Mayor's descretion (based on the overall picture).
Players can start their OWN cities as well- freely designing and allowing others to build on as they see fit.
In this way a player who starts a police dept. in a city could walk the streets as an individual and at the same time call a raid with the NPCs from his Police Station in another part of the city.
OR a player with a base could add other players to his roster and plan the taking of another city.
I don't think this is toooooooo complex- but definitely taxing.
However, you can see how the game would be always changing and even if one side does "win" I could always program the rival NPCs to start trouble again- or have a completely new faction start trouble.