2. Level locks, especially for areas but for features as well, as in lotrlol ( yes I renamed it ), to take the horse from esteldin to Bree you need to be level 30?? Shit like that will make me leave.
part of this is so that you dont go where your not supose to be which is more likely PLing or gold farming like 6 level players up in angmar.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
I think a lot of your list is pretty good, and I agree that one of the big problem with most MMO's is tied to the level system. Any game that adopts it seems to also adopt static maps (or in some cases missions) where once you hit a high enough level; you spend all your time doing things in those missions/maps. What I think would make the leveling system better is if worlds were much more dynamic. If too few people quest in an area the power of whatever creatures who live there will rise substantially to attract higher level players. If too many are there the levels gradually drop to so that players lose interest and move on to other areas. With so many games where the whole focus is reaching "end-game" this is a much better solution than the static maps that are so prevalent in most games. I also think it would be great if more games tried the idea of making quests that actually have an effect on the world. You kill x mobs for some guy to protect his village. You come back and whether 200 people have done this quest, or no people have done the quest there's no change. The mobs don't over run the village and the village doesn't grow. Even if there were small degrees of difference with this I'd think it'd be a big improvement over most MMO's. I know Tabula Rasa is promising a system like this, but after following MMO's for better than 5 years I'm skeptical at best. Currently I'm in kind of an MMO limbo right now as I've noticed a lot of these things myself. I'm digging around looking for something that's truly "new" and not some re-hashed version of the same systems that have been used in this style of game since they're start. The thing is so many of these games are setup with the same base structure. You pick a class, you level along a preset group of maps/quests, you get to the end and repeat the same thing over and over again in "end-game". EVE online is the closest I've seen to real innovation within MMO's, but it is far from perfect; especially if you're more inclined to PvE than PvP.
this is so true if players actually hunted difficult game or over hunted then they population would change having a qorld that the adventure of life is never ending also makes it so that there is no vancant noob zones like in EQ1 because everyone is gods.
thats also very true static worlds are ultimatly boring as you can never really make a difference longer than a few minutes and safe places are basicly allways safe or they get invaded by appointment for an event the world has artificial but it really helps if it doesnt feel artificial too.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
I hate clothing that styles defined by stats I hate having to dress my charactor in what the developer thinks is cool (usually some type of freekish anime armor) I want several choices for a given armor If i want my female elf to wear a chainmail skirt slit up the sidesor a bikini with strap on leather pads I should be able to.
good robes and cloaks for charactors
blood and wounds
ridgid skills and spells a player should be able to take several charactoristics or moves and create his own spell or style for instance is your fireball big and short range? or small and long range? ir it blue,green? is it a fireball or an ice ball? as for combat if i chain slash/slash/stab then i get a move different from stab/kick
dead end endgame once you hit 50 or 60 all there is to do is cleanup, raid, or PVP why is there no higher aspirations? players should be kingdom building, priests should be forming churches geting converts ect.
no in game developer meetings or GM apearences to sho us they care.
customization in games I prefer alot of customization but most games religate this to a few charactor features made at charactor creation there should be several opertunities to modify your charactors apearence,, there should be clothing equipment,,banners, shield colors, armor colors and styles to that you can look prety different and for ships I LOVE tinkering im woried that STO will screw up their ships and not have any tweeks or modifications you can do and no jefferies tubes to crawl into to fix things,,, SWG had ships some even big enough to walk around in but you couldnt do anything fun with them you couldnt repair a blown conduit during battle or scan a planet or even contact a space station for landing clearence except for a simple button.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
1) forced raid progression 2) end-game only content additions 3) gear dependent character advancement 4) PVP as a grind 5) failure to allow for basic appearance customization 6) forced character specialization for content (warriors have to be tanks, priests have to heal etc.) 7) inflated economy to punish gold farmers that actually hurts casual non-farming gamers 8) trivialized older game content 9) lack of jumping / inability to climb over 2 ft tall wall
infkated /broken economy
lack of swiming and/or boats ships in worlds with lakes or oceans
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
I'll preface this by saying that while I think that classes and levels are limiting, they make for interesting group and raid dynamics, something which I think is important. Perhaps exploring roles, rather than classes would be better. Anyway, onto shit that I really hate. 1.) TASKS! By this, I don't mean quests Everquest style, which were believable things that NPCs would make you do, and would seem reasonable and realistic. There is a difference between tasks and quests. Tasks have their place, for example, low level characters could perform vermin control tasks, giving body parts of vermin to taskmasters for a small reward. Not bad, nothing spectacular, though. Quests though, are very different. In most MMOs, there are only two quests, get to the end level, and get phat lewt. Now, we need to implement more quests, things that players have to actually work to complete. How do we do this? Undefine it... just have NPCs or even PCs ask for you to do shit, no more of these fucking question marks above their heads, no more quest journals, the player can record progress themselves if they want to. Non repeatable quests, similar to the main storyline of games such as Icewind Dale or Planescape: Torment would go a long way to make life interesting. Yes, a lot of developer work for few players, but oh so worth it for the development of the game. 2.) INSTANCES! Fuck that, just make the best and most dedicated player win the drops. This is a competition, after all, not a cakewalk. 3.) THE HERO BULLSHIT! Like in Everquest II, the level 35^^^ Heroic guard at the beginning of the game, the one that could kill me in one hit with ease calls me a hero and asks me to save him from a goblin invasion. When I start, I'm shit, so I want to be treated as such, some characters should taunt me, others should tell me to, well, fuck off. That way, when I get badass, it's a lot more involving. 7.) Mobs dropping uber loot. Mobs should drop what they have. A skeleton should drop bones, all of the bones. Rats should drop rat flesh, rat bones, rat fur, rat head and a rat tail, if you can skin it properly. So forth, so on. 8.) Linear progression... Oh, I'm done with this area now, so I can move on? That's why I'm paying $15 a month for an online game... There's more, but I can't be bothered.
true id like to see players start lives as a pesant with no standing looking for menial jobs,, then they can try to apply at different instatatutions like the guards or the church or the rogues ect where they can do tasks to proove themselves to their teachers gather toad tongues polish floors gather firewood ect you cant join the guard without buying your armor
being a streetkid can be a huge adventure! stealing apples, getting thrown in jail
NPCs should have something interesting to say if I talk to a beggar I expect him to say something beggerish,, if i give him a pinny I expect him to respond in some meaningful way.
if I go all the way to another plane of existance and meed my god (druid EQ) I expect her to say something worthy of her.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
Monster Hunter, a PS2 online game, used a unique equipment-based development system where the characters themselves did not statistically improve. Rather, their strengths and abilities were based on the equipment they had or the items they used (a form of alchemy, if you will). As such, very few characters had the same equipment and item loadout. I personally specialized in using group-heals (there were three methods of doing this in the game), and took the role of group healer. A friend of mine took the role of "de-buffer" by using poison or paralyze weapons along with pit traps and flash bombs. Another focused on bombs, and would set up elaborate bomb traps near any pit traps that were placed. Though you could argue that we reinvented the class system using what was available within the game, we did so on our terms and thus found it more enjoyable. Just because I could heal didn't mean I was limited to only that action, for example. I had a fairly menacing sword and some good armor to boot, and also used Flash Bombs on occasion. In essense, we formed our own "classes" based on specialization, but as it was on our own terms it was unconstrained.
I would love to see an MMORPG use a similar system focus on items and equipment rather than rely on character levels and classes. This Equipment-Based Development System could work as well, if not better, than any game relying on character-locked statistics and powers without forcing them to make tough choices that will affect their characters forever (or until the next respec).
Monster Hunter, a PS2 online game, used a unique equipment-based development system where the characters themselves did not statistically improve. Rather, their strengths and abilities were based on the equipment they had or the items they used (a form of alchemy, if you will). As such, very few characters had the same equipment and item loadout. I personally specialized in using group-heals (there were three methods of doing this in the game), and took the role of group healer. A friend of mine took the role of "de-buffer" by using poison or paralyze weapons along with pit traps and flash bombs. Another focused on bombs, and would set up elaborate bomb traps near any pit traps that were placed. Though you could argue that we reinvented the class system using what was available within the game, we did so on our terms and thus found it more enjoyable. Just because I could heal didn't mean I was limited to only that action, for example. I had a fairly menacing sword and some good armor to boot, and also used Flash Bombs on occasion. In essense, we formed our own "classes" based on specialization, but as it was on our own terms it was unconstrained. I would love to see an MMORPG use a similar system focus on items and equipment rather than rely on character levels and classes. This Equipment-Based Development System could work as well, if not better, than any game relying on character-locked statistics and powers without forcing them to make tough choices that will affect their characters forever (or until the next respec).
This might work in the short-term, but you have to keep in mind the fact that Monster Hunter was also only, what... 5 of 6 people in a contained area? Think about whether or not this would work in a grander scheme, a non-instanced one at that. I could see this working for a Guild Wars type game, but anything more persistant than that would run into problems. I know in my experience, I would run into groups of people who all picked up the biggest weapon and whacked away. You guys were probably unique in creating these roles, and sounds like a great experience, just not to probable to expect everyone to follow suite.
well I dont thing there should be massive alterations to a players stats except maby where a charactor works out there would be some change
I thing it should be much more a matter of the equipment they are skilled enough to wear and the skils they have similar to the difference between a civilian and the same guy transformed into a ninja or a special forces sure he is healthier but he is more importantly much better at protecting the points that intrinsicly exist.
this would change the dynamic of "quests" it wouldnt be pure 20-30-40 level it would be based a bit more on difficulty and ability to overcome those difficultys.
so a civilian entering a dungon would not have the equipment or the skills to safely nagotiate the dungon fight monsters or swing accross casims bribe an orc in his own language
so a mage isnt by definition a 98 pound weakling its his choice to spend all his time with his nose in a book instead of doing pushups.
whats the difference between a strong blacksmith and a strong barbarian effectivly skill and equipment actually the blacksmith should get some combat skill just for doing his job
so this would mean that noobs and veterans could possibly adventure together just the noob is proficiant in a single weapon light armor and combat moves where the veteran has much better armor many weapons to choose from and many skills to aid him in geting through the dungon.
this may seem a contradiction but only with level based encounters the real difference when constructing a given encounter is complexity... both noobs and veterans could raid a rat nest for shinies prety easily but only the veteran would have the skill to climb a castle wall and during nagotiations with a merchant the noob would pay 125% where the well known veteran speaking with his friend the elf merchant in elvish and using his haggle skill gets a price of only 52%
so sure you could put a civilian into uber armor but he would definatly not be skilled to employ it effectivly like puting a baby in a M1 tank and expecting him to fight in a war.
this would mean that zones arnt as much based on a single difficulty they would be more mixed together though near a major city all the uber treasure has allready been "picked over" so nead the citys you would tend to find "simpler" encounters (remember laura croft had to travel all the way to tailand to find the treasure she was after)
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
The "MMO" genre. Before you bash me, let me explain. =]
MMO is a technology. Being able to play online is something you can take advantage of. However, it's not a genre. RPG is a genre. FPS is a genre. RTS is a genre. But adding MMO in front of these does not make them a different genre. Sure, MMO technology may change the way a genre is played, but a genre is defined by the very core game mechanics. In RPGs, it's character advancement, for example. And if you think carefully, you'll notice that more and more games are getting online capabilities. It's very possible that in 10 years, there will only be online games.
However, players will not always want to play socially. There will always be those who like to play by themselves, for whatever reason. It's usually because they don't like dealing with other people, or they like to immerse themselves and feel they can do this better without interruption or complication added by other players. I understand that people playing a game in a "single-player" way is annoying to some people, but why? Is this really explainable beyond the whole "MMOs are supposed to be multiplayer" thing? Like I said, MMO is a technology, and if someone is having fun in their own way without hurting the experience of other players, why should they be ridiculed?
Instead games should facilitate both styles of game play. People are going to feel like doing both at one point or another. In fact, if developers utilized both to their potential, games could be a lot richer. People often complain that MMOs don't focus enough on story. In single-player parts of a game (instanced, perhaps), the story could be brought to life without the factor of influences or interruptions made by other characters. Think about what makes single-player games great. It's obviously the story, the detail, the individual behavior of characters, the movie sequences, etc. You can't achieve these in a multiplayer setting because there is no central control. You can't interact with this other character in a special scene because 10 other people are trying to do the same. This is when instancing and single-player gameplay should be utilized. (I think Age of Conan may be doing something like this.)
In conclusion, I think the industry just needs to break out of the MMO restraints. Go back to the traditional genres and offer the "MMO" as a feature. This could be a contributing factor to ending the production of endless WoW/EQ clones (which many of us are familiar with).
WoW/EQ Clones and the Overrated Labeling of Genres, etc.
I won't be as elaborate on this peeve. I'm really tired of all the WoW/EQ clones. I find it depressing that if you look at the UIs of several new games, they all look like WoW! What's up with that? I'm also getting tired of the same old "level-up by gaining experience points". This is not the only way of character advancement! I understand that this is easy for the typical gamer, and that it's a surefire way to get a large userbase, but why can't game developers try to create some more niche games for those who don't want to play WoW anymore?
Like I said, I think the industry needs to break out of the whole MMO thing. I definitely think that will free things up quite a bit. Look how single-player games are evolving: TESIV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XIII, Kingdom Hearts. These are all RPGs, but they offer several different ways of playing the game in both combat and character advancement. In Oblivion, it's what's commonly considered "skill-based" (though it does have levels). FFXIII has a really spiffy looking "attack chain" concept going on, which could potentially speed up and fancy-mafy RPG combat. KH is an RPG but it's very actiony. MMOs should try to be more creative and original like these games are being.
Of course, the general idea is that the real key to success in MMOs is to balance the old with the new. Use what you know works, and add in only enough originality to where your users aren't confused. However, I don't really agree with this. I think this is only supporting the "cookie-cutter design" methodology. Everyone is going to immediately think, "WoW is what works. We'll base our game off of that." WoW is undeniably an excellent game, but instead of clearly copying its game mechanics, developers should instead try to create something new and exciting.
II'll be honest. I'm a dorky hopeless aspiring game designer. I'd like to think that I have potential but in such a competitive field, who knows if I do? But I do know one thing: I don't like all the labeling. I don't like the constraints they create. I don't like the "MMO" label because it minimizes the single-player style of gameplay. I don't like the ESRB because it pretty much bans games when it gives them an AO rating, preventing creativity from flowing into the adult market (we're all stuck playing games for teenagers). I don't even really like the traditional genres when they are forced onto games-- most successful games nowadays don't fit into a particular genre. RPGs are gaining action/adventure elements. And TESIV: Oblivion has got some FPS stuff going on as well. I think much more creativity can be unleashed if developers free themselves from these design constraints.
If I ever design a game, I'll do my best from trying to stuff it into some generic genre, "MMO", or ESRB rating box. These things shouldn't be constraints on a game like technology and funding are. They are just preventing a flow of creativity. Designing for a target audience is important, yes, but breaking the audience line is a way to success as well. Understandably this is quite complex, but basically, a truly fun game is going to draw in people who weren't originally its intended audience. I think the only audiences that should be designed for are age groups (the ESRB isn't quite fair, so don't hop on me for mentioning age groups here), and educated vs uneducated (e.g., literacy, technology skills). Possibly also political/religious/cultural views.
Quite trying to develop an MMORPG or an FPS or whatever-- just try to make a fun game. You can take some "inspriation" from other games, and perhaps take the core mechanics of a genre and put your own twist on it, but don't try to copy successful games just for the sake of making a profit. Making a profit is important, but when you are providing a gaming experience to your customers, you are providing them with a service. That service should be something new and exciting and above all, fun, not pretty much the same thing they can get from WoW. Because if they want WoW, they'll play WoW, and not your copy-cat game. >_>
Okay, I got elaborate. So shoot me.
Some other general peeves:
Lack of customization options in characters' physical appearance. I could go on for ages on this. For this, Sword of the New World sucks.
Lack of free motion and interaction with the environment (e.g., swimming, jumping, climbing, etc.). Again, Sword of the New World sucks.
Lack of emotion (have you ever seen someone cry in an MMOG? What about romance?).
Lack of mature/adult MMOGs (yay for Age of Conan). I'm an adult, I can deal with, deserve, and prefer content for my age group.
The Adults-Only rating (before you jump on my back, AO is not just sex). I know I mentioned this before and I know there's not any AO MMOGs, but the AO rating is utter crap. It's not a rating, it's a ban! Really, AO games are not sold by retailers and cannot be released on consoles. What's that telling you? It's telling you that developers aren't allowed to make adult games and that adults aren't allowed access to adult games. Adults should have gaming freedom to play the kinds of games they want, and developers should be able to develop these games and make them available to adults. I'm sure there's a large audience for these types of games. Also, if that's not enough for ya-- why is there only a 1 year difference between M and AO? Think about it for a while. I cannot wait until a AAA online game has full frontal male nudity (male because I know that female nudity is going to come first ). I think breaking the stupid AO limit is going to be the first step towards truly free, immersive gameplay for adults. And again I emphasize, AO is not just sex, as AO also includes gore, heavy violence, nudity (even innocent nudity), and eroticism (not quite sex).
Stigmatization/banning of cybering. First note, I don't cyber, and I probably never will (as I'm in a fulfilling relationship), but I try to have an open mind. The fact is that cyber-sex is a safe way for people to relieve sexual pressure, without risk of STDs or pergnancy, and without the pressure of a relationship. Think it's a loser thing to do? I'd rather be a loser than get someone pregnant or get a fatal STD by having sex in person. I think cyber-sex should be allowed in secure, instanced areas (and maybe even facilitated with animations or something). And while I think that cyber-sex is safe for teenagers as well (except for online predators, of course), I understand that it's considered adult content, and as such should require something like an "adult pass" that would work similarly to an expansion for a game. The fact is that people are going to cyber-sex anyway, you might as well permit it if they're legally of age.
Parents blaming games: If you don't like what your kid is playing, it's YOUR fault for buying it for them and not doing the research. Don't blame the game companies when the game is frickin' labeled and you recklessly spoil your child instead of checking what you buy them. it's very easy to look game ratings and other stuff up, and like previously mentioned, it's also on the box. And to retailers: you had better damn check for ID when selling M/AO games. Not that you sell AO games (for some stupid reason).
I for one really hate the fact that with crafting skills you get some nice items you can make but when you do it they are BOP which means you are the only one who can use it. Oh wait and you do blacksmithing and are a cloth, leather or other that can not use plate or an axe. etc. Oh and the crafting that is so useless to anyone but yourself like engineering where you have to be an engineer of certain level to even use that item. Making engineering a useless craft except for bullets. Why? It would seem that games (WoW is where I am speaking of here) don't want you to have a craft where you can make money. They want you to play but they don't want you to be able to have any real use without questing and raiding.
Me I can't raid due to the time diff on the server I am on and my work. I like the people I have met and changing servers to one in my time frame I don't consider so I am not complaining just explaining why raiding is out for me and this leaves me as a casual player that doesn't experience the high end game and of course in time leaves me with little options.
Classes. I would much rather have the ability to pick and choose the skills I want. Much like UO or old SWG.
Beverly hills 90210: Why does everyone have to be built like a WWF wrestler or Jessica Alba?
To the poster two above. Keyword GAME! A game doesn't need to have nudity, sex and special allowances for people to cyber to be "adult". If people are so wound up and need to relieve sexual tension then there are plenty of outlets for that already outside of MMOs. Adding in pixelated boobies and virtual sex chat, despite your views, doesn't enhance GAME play. Again keyword GAME.
I think if I had to pick something I'd say I hate that every MMO released in the last couple years has tried to be WoW 2.0.
If I want to play WoW, I'll play WoW. I played WoW for two plus years. One of the reasons I'm so into Eve right now is simply because it is completely, totally, and utterly unlike WoW.
I think in the future the MMO 'genre' will diversify. Game populations will be smaller but the overall community will be larger, we'll all just be playing different games that cater to our tastes better.
I absolutely hate biolink or no trade items. They always force that crap into games so they can sell more expansions. I like how EVE does expansions: free.
To the poster two above. Keyword GAME! A game doesn't need to have nudity, sex and special allowances for people to cyber to be "adult". If people are so wound up and need to relieve sexual tension then there are plenty of outlets for that already outside of MMOs. Adding in pixelated boobies and virtual sex chat, despite your views, doesn't enhance GAME play. Again keyword GAME.
GAMES are not just about GAMEPLAY. =p Think about it.
Obviously adult content would be for fun, not for game mechanics or anything. Well, there could be mechanics involved, but that's besides the point. It would be for shits and giggles. For fun. For immersion or roleplaying, whatever. The point is that it would play a similar role to how emotes and character customization occur. If you can choose which clothes you where, which can play purely cosmetic purposes, what good reason is there to not let characters be completely naked (especially if they're adults)? Morality? Pfft. Everyone has different moral views, and overall views are becoming more liberal over time anyway. And what about cyber-sex or virtual sex? Obviously, it depends on the setting, and the audience. If the setting is somewhat adult itself or savage or realistic or something like that, sex could have a place within the setting. If the audience is adults, the content is suitable for the audience, and those who wish to view or partake in the content are free to do so. Those who don't can simply disable or avoid it or whatever.
I'd like to make a specific point: if you allow and even facilitate it, there is a better chance that other players won't be unwillingly subjected to it. For example, if you have an adult pass which is required to view the content, then those who don't want it can simply not buy the pass, and they won't see it at all. It'll be like any other M rated game out there. However, those who do want it can buy the pass.
The fact is that in an online environment, people will cyber anyway. You can't stop them from trying, even if you make it against the rules. The only way to keep other players from being unwillingly subjected to it is to "quarantine" it, if that makes any sense. Give it it's own special pass or instanced areas or something. Then players can do what they want without hurting the experience for others.
Overall, what I'm trying to establish here is that this kind of game would be for adults from the start. I'm not arguing that WoW or something should have this stuff. I'm saying it would be cool if someone developed an M or AO rated game that had this stuff, a game purposefully designed for adult audiences.
There are a few out there if you bother to do the research you will find them.
The problem is the two mechanics tend to not work well together (game play vs sexual content), despite how cool you might think it is in concept. If you can find a way to "pass card" restrict the adult content I guarentee you the playerbase will circumvent it and it will overflow into normal gameplay. This isn't an issue or morals at all. The two will eat each other alive and more than likely the game will end up a virtual sexual escapade. The masses of internet morons will just assume everyone wants to punch the bishop 24/7 if they signed up for a game with that kind of content no matter what or where they are in game.
Personally I see it as a situation of crap of get off the pot. Don't try to make a <<insert MMO genre game here>> and a sex resort. Just skip past all the elves, lasers and whatever and get right down to business. Given a game that openly endorses adult activities the choice between stokin it to a nekkid elf or slaying orcs for hours to scape some gold for a new sword, lets just say the orcs will get lonely pretty fast.
Not that you could age verify and or passcard restrict anything over the internet anyhow.
You bring up some good points. I dunno, maybe I'm just a perv. Then again, me doing it for being a perv doesn't make sense, because I honestly have no desire to participate in virtual sex in a game. I think the reason why I am supporting virtual sex is moreso because I think it sorta adds to sandbox-style role-playing. For some reason I think that ideally, a player should be able to role-play whatever they want so long as it fits in with the fictional universe, and I definitely think that sex should play a role in a fictional universe. I also like the idea of user-generated content facilitating role-playing (not necessarily sex role-plays), with custom animations or something.
But at the same time, I definitely am skeptical about whether a game can include sex without being considered a MMOVSG (MMO Virtual Sex Game). It's pretty obvious what the emphasis is in this genre. Ideally there is a difference between a sex game and a game with sex, but it depends so much on the users that it's not really reliable. If the general opinion is that it's a sex game, it wouldn't matter what else it had, because everyone would be playing it for the sex. And I just don't like the idea of that.
I'm going to blame society. Fucking society! It probably has something to do with sex being stigmatized. Anyway, I'm still of the opinion that cyber-sex is healthy, but I think now that it might be best for it to stay out of the games, where it might take dominance over the other parts of the game. It's depressing, but oh well, that's how life works.
Maybe in the future, eh? The industry is definitely changing as MMO is really just a technology and developers are starting to realize that (with parallels being made between MMOGs and other virtual worlds). It's no longer about just the gameplay anymore, things like community and world (pretty much an umbrella term for exploration, role-playing, story, and immersion) are becoming more important. That being said, I think virtual world games are going to start being designed more for niche markets. Maybe if this ever happens, sex will be able to play a less emphasized, casual role in online games.
However I don't think that all adult content would affect a game like sex would. I still think nudity and varying levels of eroticism can have a place in a mature online virtual world game without dominating it like sex would. Of course, it's still dependent on the setting, but I think that nudity and eroticism can definitely add to the immersive experience. Age of Conan is making breakthroughs in this, but does anyone have any idea how much nudity is in the game? I've only seen breasts so far. It's rather unfortunate if they are not including male nudity as well, in order to avoid an AO rating.
Again, the Adults-Only rating sucks. It still makes no sense to me why M is separate from AO. There's only 1 year of difference, so you can't really say it's a different age group. And there are content descriptors anyway, so it's not like a different rating is needed. I think the only reason it's there, is so that it can be used as a ban. After all, retailers don't sell AO games and consoles don't allow them.
I'd like to hear some other opinions on immersive nudity and the AO rating.
I'm not quite certain but I think that I hate EQ-style aggro mechanics the most. Very fact that the entirity of the game revolves around forcing mobs to act stupid just galls me to no end.
Originally posted by x_rast_x I think in the future the MMO 'genre' will diversify. Game populations will be smaller but the overall community will be larger, we'll all just be playing different games that cater to our tastes better.
I have to disagree. I think, just like many of the other industries today, MMOs will become more vague and general, and every MMO will have a little bit of everything. Some no-name company develops a new feature? The other 700 companies also include it, so that every game is exactly the same and it's really just personal preference and quality that make the difference.
Honestly, we aren't that far off from this scenario as it stands now.
This might work in the short-term, but you have to keep in mind the fact that Monster Hunter was also only, what... 5 of 6 people in a contained area? Think about whether or not this would work in a grander scheme, a non-instanced one at that. I could see this working for a Guild Wars type game, but anything more persistant than that would run into problems. I know in my experience, I would run into groups of people who all picked up the biggest weapon and whacked away. You guys were probably unique in creating these roles, and sounds like a great experience, just not to probable to expect everyone to follow suite.
Perhaps I did not clarify the system properly.
Items had a rarity level. Nearly all the items necessary to construct weapons or armor were over Rank 3, which was not tradable. This meant those players had to go out and kill those monsters (with or without help) to get the parts necessary to build those weapons. Therefore the system is self-balancing.
Comments
part of this is so that you dont go where your not supose to be which is more likely PLing or gold farming like 6 level players up in angmar.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
have a bonus if your having a skilled person help you or a professional teacher
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
thats also very true static worlds are ultimatly boring as you can never really make a difference longer than a few minutes and safe places are basicly allways safe or they get invaded by appointment for an event the world has artificial but it really helps if it doesnt feel artificial too.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
I hate clothing that styles defined by stats I hate having to dress my charactor in what the developer thinks is cool (usually some type of freekish anime armor) I want several choices for a given armor If i want my female elf to wear a chainmail skirt slit up the sidesor a bikini with strap on leather pads I should be able to.
good robes and cloaks for charactors
blood and wounds
ridgid skills and spells a player should be able to take several charactoristics or moves and create his own spell or style for instance is your fireball big and short range? or small and long range? ir it blue,green? is it a fireball or an ice ball? as for combat if i chain slash/slash/stab then i get a move different from stab/kick
dead end endgame once you hit 50 or 60 all there is to do is cleanup, raid, or PVP why is there no higher aspirations? players should be kingdom building, priests should be forming churches geting converts ect.
no in game developer meetings or GM apearences to sho us they care.
customization in games I prefer alot of customization but most games religate this to a few charactor features made at charactor creation there should be several opertunities to modify your charactors apearence,, there should be clothing equipment,,banners, shield colors, armor colors and styles to that you can look prety different and for ships I LOVE tinkering im woried that STO will screw up their ships and not have any tweeks or modifications you can do and no jefferies tubes to crawl into to fix things,,, SWG had ships some even big enough to walk around in but you couldnt do anything fun with them you couldnt repair a blown conduit during battle or scan a planet or even contact a space station for landing clearence except for a simple button.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
lack of swiming and/or boats ships in worlds with lakes or oceans
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
being a streetkid can be a huge adventure! stealing apples, getting thrown in jail
NPCs should have something interesting to say if I talk to a beggar I expect him to say something beggerish,, if i give him a pinny I expect him to respond in some meaningful way.
if I go all the way to another plane of existance and meed my god (druid EQ) I expect her to say something worthy of her.
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
You mean like in Baldur's Gate when you click on a prostitute and she says your a fine looking strumpet.
Monster Hunter, a PS2 online game, used a unique equipment-based development system where the characters themselves did not statistically improve. Rather, their strengths and abilities were based on the equipment they had or the items they used (a form of alchemy, if you will). As such, very few characters had the same equipment and item loadout. I personally specialized in using group-heals (there were three methods of doing this in the game), and took the role of group healer. A friend of mine took the role of "de-buffer" by using poison or paralyze weapons along with pit traps and flash bombs. Another focused on bombs, and would set up elaborate bomb traps near any pit traps that were placed. Though you could argue that we reinvented the class system using what was available within the game, we did so on our terms and thus found it more enjoyable. Just because I could heal didn't mean I was limited to only that action, for example. I had a fairly menacing sword and some good armor to boot, and also used Flash Bombs on occasion. In essense, we formed our own "classes" based on specialization, but as it was on our own terms it was unconstrained.
I would love to see an MMORPG use a similar system focus on items and equipment rather than rely on character levels and classes. This Equipment-Based Development System could work as well, if not better, than any game relying on character-locked statistics and powers without forcing them to make tough choices that will affect their characters forever (or until the next respec).
This might work in the short-term, but you have to keep in mind the fact that Monster Hunter was also only, what... 5 of 6 people in a contained area? Think about whether or not this would work in a grander scheme, a non-instanced one at that. I could see this working for a Guild Wars type game, but anything more persistant than that would run into problems. I know in my experience, I would run into groups of people who all picked up the biggest weapon and whacked away. You guys were probably unique in creating these roles, and sounds like a great experience, just not to probable to expect everyone to follow suite.
well I dont thing there should be massive alterations to a players stats except maby where a charactor works out there would be some change
I thing it should be much more a matter of the equipment they are skilled enough to wear and the skils they have similar to the difference between a civilian and the same guy transformed into a ninja or a special forces sure he is healthier but he is more importantly much better at protecting the points that intrinsicly exist.
this would change the dynamic of "quests" it wouldnt be pure 20-30-40 level it would be based a bit more on difficulty and ability to overcome those difficultys.
so a civilian entering a dungon would not have the equipment or the skills to safely nagotiate the dungon fight monsters or swing accross casims bribe an orc in his own language
so a mage isnt by definition a 98 pound weakling its his choice to spend all his time with his nose in a book instead of doing pushups.
whats the difference between a strong blacksmith and a strong barbarian effectivly skill and equipment actually the blacksmith should get some combat skill just for doing his job
so this would mean that noobs and veterans could possibly adventure together just the noob is proficiant in a single weapon light armor and combat moves where the veteran has much better armor many weapons to choose from and many skills to aid him in geting through the dungon.
this may seem a contradiction but only with level based encounters the real difference when constructing a given encounter is complexity... both noobs and veterans could raid a rat nest for shinies prety easily but only the veteran would have the skill to climb a castle wall and during nagotiations with a merchant the noob would pay 125% where the well known veteran speaking with his friend the elf merchant in elvish and using his haggle skill gets a price of only 52%
so sure you could put a civilian into uber armor but he would definatly not be skilled to employ it effectivly like puting a baby in a M1 tank and expecting him to fight in a war.
this would mean that zones arnt as much based on a single difficulty they would be more mixed together though near a major city all the uber treasure has allready been "picked over" so nead the citys you would tend to find "simpler" encounters (remember laura croft had to travel all the way to tailand to find the treasure she was after)
make a world, not a game, we dont want another game.
The "MMO" genre. Before you bash me, let me explain. =]
MMO is a technology. Being able to play online is something you can take advantage of. However, it's not a genre. RPG is a genre. FPS is a genre. RTS is a genre. But adding MMO in front of these does not make them a different genre. Sure, MMO technology may change the way a genre is played, but a genre is defined by the very core game mechanics. In RPGs, it's character advancement, for example. And if you think carefully, you'll notice that more and more games are getting online capabilities. It's very possible that in 10 years, there will only be online games.
However, players will not always want to play socially. There will always be those who like to play by themselves, for whatever reason. It's usually because they don't like dealing with other people, or they like to immerse themselves and feel they can do this better without interruption or complication added by other players. I understand that people playing a game in a "single-player" way is annoying to some people, but why? Is this really explainable beyond the whole "MMOs are supposed to be multiplayer" thing? Like I said, MMO is a technology, and if someone is having fun in their own way without hurting the experience of other players, why should they be ridiculed?
Instead games should facilitate both styles of game play. People are going to feel like doing both at one point or another. In fact, if developers utilized both to their potential, games could be a lot richer. People often complain that MMOs don't focus enough on story. In single-player parts of a game (instanced, perhaps), the story could be brought to life without the factor of influences or interruptions made by other characters. Think about what makes single-player games great. It's obviously the story, the detail, the individual behavior of characters, the movie sequences, etc. You can't achieve these in a multiplayer setting because there is no central control. You can't interact with this other character in a special scene because 10 other people are trying to do the same. This is when instancing and single-player gameplay should be utilized. (I think Age of Conan may be doing something like this.)
In conclusion, I think the industry just needs to break out of the MMO restraints. Go back to the traditional genres and offer the "MMO" as a feature. This could be a contributing factor to ending the production of endless WoW/EQ clones (which many of us are familiar with).
WoW/EQ Clones and the Overrated Labeling of Genres, etc.
I won't be as elaborate on this peeve. I'm really tired of all the WoW/EQ clones. I find it depressing that if you look at the UIs of several new games, they all look like WoW! What's up with that? I'm also getting tired of the same old "level-up by gaining experience points". This is not the only way of character advancement! I understand that this is easy for the typical gamer, and that it's a surefire way to get a large userbase, but why can't game developers try to create some more niche games for those who don't want to play WoW anymore?
Like I said, I think the industry needs to break out of the whole MMO thing. I definitely think that will free things up quite a bit. Look how single-player games are evolving: TESIV: Oblivion, Final Fantasy XIII, Kingdom Hearts. These are all RPGs, but they offer several different ways of playing the game in both combat and character advancement. In Oblivion, it's what's commonly considered "skill-based" (though it does have levels). FFXIII has a really spiffy looking "attack chain" concept going on, which could potentially speed up and fancy-mafy RPG combat. KH is an RPG but it's very actiony. MMOs should try to be more creative and original like these games are being.
Of course, the general idea is that the real key to success in MMOs is to balance the old with the new. Use what you know works, and add in only enough originality to where your users aren't confused. However, I don't really agree with this. I think this is only supporting the "cookie-cutter design" methodology. Everyone is going to immediately think, "WoW is what works. We'll base our game off of that." WoW is undeniably an excellent game, but instead of clearly copying its game mechanics, developers should instead try to create something new and exciting.
II'll be honest. I'm a dorky hopeless aspiring game designer. I'd like to think that I have potential but in such a competitive field, who knows if I do? But I do know one thing: I don't like all the labeling. I don't like the constraints they create. I don't like the "MMO" label because it minimizes the single-player style of gameplay. I don't like the ESRB because it pretty much bans games when it gives them an AO rating, preventing creativity from flowing into the adult market (we're all stuck playing games for teenagers). I don't even really like the traditional genres when they are forced onto games-- most successful games nowadays don't fit into a particular genre. RPGs are gaining action/adventure elements. And TESIV: Oblivion has got some FPS stuff going on as well. I think much more creativity can be unleashed if developers free themselves from these design constraints.
If I ever design a game, I'll do my best from trying to stuff it into some generic genre, "MMO", or ESRB rating box. These things shouldn't be constraints on a game like technology and funding are. They are just preventing a flow of creativity. Designing for a target audience is important, yes, but breaking the audience line is a way to success as well. Understandably this is quite complex, but basically, a truly fun game is going to draw in people who weren't originally its intended audience. I think the only audiences that should be designed for are age groups (the ESRB isn't quite fair, so don't hop on me for mentioning age groups here), and educated vs uneducated (e.g., literacy, technology skills). Possibly also political/religious/cultural views.
Quite trying to develop an MMORPG or an FPS or whatever-- just try to make a fun game. You can take some "inspriation" from other games, and perhaps take the core mechanics of a genre and put your own twist on it, but don't try to copy successful games just for the sake of making a profit. Making a profit is important, but when you are providing a gaming experience to your customers, you are providing them with a service. That service should be something new and exciting and above all, fun, not pretty much the same thing they can get from WoW. Because if they want WoW, they'll play WoW, and not your copy-cat game. >_>
Okay, I got elaborate. So shoot me.
Some other general peeves:
I'm sure there's more, but I need sleep.
There are many things here I so agree with.
I for one really hate the fact that with crafting skills you get some nice items you can make but when you do it they are BOP which means you are the only one who can use it. Oh wait and you do blacksmithing and are a cloth, leather or other that can not use plate or an axe. etc. Oh and the crafting that is so useless to anyone but yourself like engineering where you have to be an engineer of certain level to even use that item. Making engineering a useless craft except for bullets. Why? It would seem that games (WoW is where I am speaking of here) don't want you to have a craft where you can make money. They want you to play but they don't want you to be able to have any real use without questing and raiding.
Me I can't raid due to the time diff on the server I am on and my work. I like the people I have met and changing servers to one in my time frame I don't consider so I am not complaining just explaining why raiding is out for me and this leaves me as a casual player that doesn't experience the high end game and of course in time leaves me with little options.
Gikku
Classes. I would much rather have the ability to pick and choose the skills I want. Much like UO or old SWG.
Beverly hills 90210: Why does everyone have to be built like a WWF wrestler or Jessica Alba?
To the poster two above. Keyword GAME! A game doesn't need to have nudity, sex and special allowances for people to cyber to be "adult". If people are so wound up and need to relieve sexual tension then there are plenty of outlets for that already outside of MMOs. Adding in pixelated boobies and virtual sex chat, despite your views, doesn't enhance GAME play. Again keyword GAME.
I think if I had to pick something I'd say I hate that every MMO released in the last couple years has tried to be WoW 2.0.
If I want to play WoW, I'll play WoW. I played WoW for two plus years. One of the reasons I'm so into Eve right now is simply because it is completely, totally, and utterly unlike WoW.
I think in the future the MMO 'genre' will diversify. Game populations will be smaller but the overall community will be larger, we'll all just be playing different games that cater to our tastes better.
I absolutely hate biolink or no trade items. They always force that crap into games so they can sell more expansions. I like how EVE does expansions: free.
GAMES are not just about GAMEPLAY. =p Think about it.
Obviously adult content would be for fun, not for game mechanics or anything. Well, there could be mechanics involved, but that's besides the point. It would be for shits and giggles. For fun. For immersion or roleplaying, whatever. The point is that it would play a similar role to how emotes and character customization occur. If you can choose which clothes you where, which can play purely cosmetic purposes, what good reason is there to not let characters be completely naked (especially if they're adults)? Morality? Pfft. Everyone has different moral views, and overall views are becoming more liberal over time anyway. And what about cyber-sex or virtual sex? Obviously, it depends on the setting, and the audience. If the setting is somewhat adult itself or savage or realistic or something like that, sex could have a place within the setting. If the audience is adults, the content is suitable for the audience, and those who wish to view or partake in the content are free to do so. Those who don't can simply disable or avoid it or whatever.
I'd like to make a specific point: if you allow and even facilitate it, there is a better chance that other players won't be unwillingly subjected to it. For example, if you have an adult pass which is required to view the content, then those who don't want it can simply not buy the pass, and they won't see it at all. It'll be like any other M rated game out there. However, those who do want it can buy the pass.
The fact is that in an online environment, people will cyber anyway. You can't stop them from trying, even if you make it against the rules. The only way to keep other players from being unwillingly subjected to it is to "quarantine" it, if that makes any sense. Give it it's own special pass or instanced areas or something. Then players can do what they want without hurting the experience for others.
Overall, what I'm trying to establish here is that this kind of game would be for adults from the start. I'm not arguing that WoW or something should have this stuff. I'm saying it would be cool if someone developed an M or AO rated game that had this stuff, a game purposefully designed for adult audiences.
There are a few out there if you bother to do the research you will find them.
The problem is the two mechanics tend to not work well together (game play vs sexual content), despite how cool you might think it is in concept. If you can find a way to "pass card" restrict the adult content I guarentee you the playerbase will circumvent it and it will overflow into normal gameplay. This isn't an issue or morals at all. The two will eat each other alive and more than likely the game will end up a virtual sexual escapade. The masses of internet morons will just assume everyone wants to punch the bishop 24/7 if they signed up for a game with that kind of content no matter what or where they are in game.
Personally I see it as a situation of crap of get off the pot. Don't try to make a <<insert MMO genre game here>> and a sex resort. Just skip past all the elves, lasers and whatever and get right down to business. Given a game that openly endorses adult activities the choice between stokin it to a nekkid elf or slaying orcs for hours to scape some gold for a new sword, lets just say the orcs will get lonely pretty fast.
Not that you could age verify and or passcard restrict anything over the internet anyhow.
For age verification, it's already here, just not used much.
You bring up some good points. I dunno, maybe I'm just a perv. Then again, me doing it for being a perv doesn't make sense, because I honestly have no desire to participate in virtual sex in a game. I think the reason why I am supporting virtual sex is moreso because I think it sorta adds to sandbox-style role-playing. For some reason I think that ideally, a player should be able to role-play whatever they want so long as it fits in with the fictional universe, and I definitely think that sex should play a role in a fictional universe. I also like the idea of user-generated content facilitating role-playing (not necessarily sex role-plays), with custom animations or something.
But at the same time, I definitely am skeptical about whether a game can include sex without being considered a MMOVSG (MMO Virtual Sex Game). It's pretty obvious what the emphasis is in this genre. Ideally there is a difference between a sex game and a game with sex, but it depends so much on the users that it's not really reliable. If the general opinion is that it's a sex game, it wouldn't matter what else it had, because everyone would be playing it for the sex. And I just don't like the idea of that.
I'm going to blame society. Fucking society!
It probably has something to do with sex being stigmatized. Anyway, I'm still of the opinion that cyber-sex is healthy, but I think now that it might be best for it to stay out of the games, where it might take dominance over the other parts of the game. It's depressing, but oh well, that's how life works.
Maybe in the future, eh? The industry is definitely changing as MMO is really just a technology and developers are starting to realize that (with parallels being made between MMOGs and other virtual worlds). It's no longer about just the gameplay anymore, things like community and world (pretty much an umbrella term for exploration, role-playing, story, and immersion) are becoming more important. That being said, I think virtual world games are going to start being designed more for niche markets. Maybe if this ever happens, sex will be able to play a less emphasized, casual role in online games.
However I don't think that all adult content would affect a game like sex would. I still think nudity and varying levels of eroticism can have a place in a mature online virtual world game without dominating it like sex would. Of course, it's still dependent on the setting, but I think that nudity and eroticism can definitely add to the immersive experience. Age of Conan is making breakthroughs in this, but does anyone have any idea how much nudity is in the game? I've only seen breasts so far. It's rather unfortunate if they are not including male nudity as well, in order to avoid an AO rating.
Again, the Adults-Only rating sucks.
It still makes no sense to me why M is separate from AO. There's only 1 year of difference, so you can't really say it's a different age group. And there are content descriptors anyway, so it's not like a different rating is needed. I think the only reason it's there, is so that it can be used as a ban. After all, retailers don't sell AO games and consoles don't allow them.
I'd like to hear some other opinions on immersive nudity and the AO rating.
I'm not quite certain but I think that I hate EQ-style aggro mechanics the most. Very fact that the entirity of the game revolves around forcing mobs to act stupid just galls me to no end.
I have to disagree. I think, just like many of the other industries today, MMOs will become more vague and general, and every MMO will have a little bit of everything. Some no-name company develops a new feature? The other 700 companies also include it, so that every game is exactly the same and it's really just personal preference and quality that make the difference.
Honestly, we aren't that far off from this scenario as it stands now.
Perhaps I did not clarify the system properly.
Items had a rarity level. Nearly all the items necessary to construct weapons or armor were over Rank 3, which was not tradable. This meant those players had to go out and kill those monsters (with or without help) to get the parts necessary to build those weapons. Therefore the system is self-balancing.