But the reason why Tortage worked in AoC was because Funcom embedded an SP game into their MMO. The nighttime quests in Tortage are a SP game, plain and simple. A nicely done SP game, I might add, but not at all an MMO. The disappointment came when people who wanted this SP element to persist throughout the game were disappointed that the rest of the game was more of an MMO type game (and not a very well done one, but that's a topic for another thread). As I see it, the kind of storyline development that you got in Tortage was only possible because that was carved out of the MMO experience, and slipped in as SP mode. To me, that's backwards in terms of what the potential of MMOs really is. Sure, you can have better storylines if you slip in SP elements, but that comes at the expense of the MM element of the genre.
In my opinion, the better direction for MMOs is not to embed SP elements in these games, but to take them in the direction of enabling more massively multiplayer content. To a certain degree, this is still currently limited by technology, but certain designers -- notably CCP -- have had the vision to actually use an MMO's strong point (its ability to bring together large numbers of people online) and use *that* as the basis of a game's vision, rather than trying to replicate SP game experiences in a massively multiplayer world. Give players the ability to establish sovereignty, achieve economic advantages and defend or fight over them, etc. This is the stuff of massively multiplayer games. I don't think it has to be hardcore PvP, but I do think that empowering the players to find the content in interaction with other players, rather than interaction primarily with NPCs, is playing to the genre's strength and unique features, rather than trying to shoehorn SP game elements into a massively multiplayer context.
I don't doubt that people find the mish-mash of SP and MM to be entertaining. Look at how entertaining many people found Tortage, which was precisely such a mish-mash. But the result is a hyrbid MMO/SP game, not a full-blown MMO, and not a game that plays to, and exploits fully, the natural advantages of a game that is not just multiplayer, but *massively* multiplayer.
It is like in SWG where all items where player made, and the lowley crafter sets off to start his own shop from making cdef rifles to owning many harvesters and buildings with venders. Hiring some one to get hide or meat or bones for you so you can continue crafting and gaining skill. THAT is a MMORPG.
Really? The crafter and his group stood at the crafting station and pressed buttons together to make that gun? More likely he stood there SOLO and crafted it...
You can't do it exactly like that in SWG but you can have different people making different parts in an assembly line. You can do that in Wurm Online though. Choosing to solo is fine, I do it ALL the time, but the game you all think is good has little option for grouping with other people (other than friends) which just makes it Mass Effect Multiplayer.
Are you sure people with narrowly defined definitions for what a MMORPG is, or should be, aren't what's ruining MMORPG's today? MMORPG's are bigger than just group play. At best MMORPG's are a living, breathing society and just like real societies, there are people who like to socialize and people who don't. THAT is a MMORPG.
Yes I'm sure people with narrowly defined definitions are not ruining MMORPGs. MMORPG'S ARE a living, breathing society which have solo players. But see, when you make a kotor mmo that you can play with your friends or solo, you don't have a living breathing world. You have a tiny box of a game area. There is no society, you're going to have a hard time socializing when no one wants to talk to you and the only people who you group with are your friends and yourself. So you're going to have a multiplayer mode in a single player game.
Solo play in MMORPGs doesn't exclude group play. Or do you get easily upset when Billy won't play with you...
Just wanted to drop in and respond to the mention of Neverwinter Nights a few times here as I tend to see it come up as a single player quest driven adventure in response to 'solo MMOs'. The best part of Neverwinter for me was the player created persistent online worlds and multiplayer modules.
If I was going to sit on the couch, or in bed, with my significant other and read a book, that's one thing and I could see how that could be quite enjoyable. But to do that on the internet in a game? No thanks. I like the well thought out and detailed world. I just dont' think making up stories told by NPC's that don't change the world one iota is the way to do that in a Massive online game.
Well, as I said earlier, this would be a niche, and obviously doesn't sound like your cup of tea.
I am curious to hear whether or not you like questing in MMOs. If so, do you read the quest text? After doing the quests, have you changed the world one iota? I'm not advocating changing the world here -- just giving us more involved, deep quests and meaningful interaction with the quest givers. I am at a loss as to how anyone could see that as a bad thing in MMOs.
Take AoC for example. The cut scenes and voice acting in the first 20 levels is superb. It added a lot to the immersion for me, and it's a big reason why the game felt broken after level 20 and Tortage. If Bioware can find a way to build on that experience and make it better and workable for a group, I think that'd definitely be a win for the MMO genre.
I enjoy playing single player RPGs. Loved KOTOR, 1 and 2, played both all the way through more than once. I'm really liking Fallout 3. I listen to, or read all the quest dialog, and enjoy the story and the missions I'm doing.
I never read quest dialog in MMORPGs. What's the point? Do X, get Y. What difference does the story make? It's still do X, get Y.
Not so in single player games. You get a quest in Fallout 3 where you can difuse a bomb and get rewarded, or someone else will pay you to set it off. It's in the middle of a town. If you difuse it, you get a room in the town free of charge (which matters because you can sleep and regain hit points). If you blow it up, no more town, no trading, no room. So it makes a difference, and it pays the read the quest and what it's all about.
In MMOrpgS THE only thing that changes is what you get, xp, gear, etc. Do X, get Y. You can make up a billion stories about it, but it's still the same, Do X, get Y. Nothing else changes, so why would I read that crap?
Solo play in MMORPGs doesn't exclude group play. Or do you get easily upset when Billy won't play with you...
How am I going to play football, if Billy is riding his motorcycle on the football field?
I don't want Billy to join the team, just get his bike off the field so I can play the game.
What you're saying is well, we want to let you and Billy play on the same field, so we've changed the rules of Football, so that Billy can ride his motorcycle on the field while you play.
If their MMO is anything like their single player games, they'll have the worst animation for any major developer. It'll be finished in a week and all the choices that you think are suppsoed to have grand implications in the game actually don't mean a damn thing in the end=) KOTOR might be one of the most overhyped RPGs I've ever tried. Oblivion was a frightful bore. I felt like I was playing a single player MMO without all the people that make MMOs fun. Had to load up on mods to bring some enjoyment to it...auto enemy leveling?? WHo thought that crap up? F3 has been good so far(3 or 4 hrs in) except for the fact that I can shoot someone in the head 12 times from 2 ft away and they won't fricken die. Hello, starving, insane person with no armor....I just shot you in the head and you're still attacking me with a lead pipe!! I wouldn't mind that if the game wasn't trying to be realistic. But since it looks relaistic, I have to worry about radiation poisoning and lots of other realistic elements, shooting someone in the head without a helmet, with a 9mm at point blank range so I can't miss, should KILL them pretty instantly. Dumbest thing I've ever seen in an RPG. Yes, the animation in F3 is just as bad as Oblivion. Almost amaturishly sad.... Haven't gotten to Mass Effect yet, since the reviews that haven't been fanboy love fests have pointed out glaring flaws that made the game quite average and the exploration element totally lame and pointless. Once I see it in the bargain been for PC, I'll snag it.
of what Bioware can do, I can't wait to try out their Star Wars MMO. I just bought Mass Effect for the PC tonight and I'm completely blown away. It's like taking part in a movie. It's amazing and the attention to detail is incredible. I heard that their Star Wars MMO was going to be about the stories. If it's even close to this, it'll be mind blowing.
Mass Effect is not a shining example of their game making ability.
Completely linear, side-quest planets were a waste of time since evey one consisted of the same barren world (not even trees or any types of animals except for sandworms at a base and apparently all the grass was perfectly mowed by someone) except for one base and one or two mineral deposits. Very low replayability factor.
Graphics were decent (on the main stroy planets at least) and the story was good. But when compared to Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter Nights, or even Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect was subpar at best. I ranked it barely above the linear borefest known as Jade Empire.
of what Bioware can do, I can't wait to try out their Star Wars MMO. I just bought Mass Effect for the PC tonight and I'm completely blown away. It's like taking part in a movie. It's amazing and the attention to detail is incredible. I heard that their Star Wars MMO was going to be about the stories. If it's even close to this, it'll be mind blowing.
Mass Effect is not a shining example of their game making ability.
Completely linear, side-quest planets were a waste of time since evey one consisted of the same barren world (not even trees or any types of animals except for sandworms at a base) except for one base and one or two mineral deposits. Very low replayability factor.
Graphics were decent (on the main stroy planets at least) and the story was good. But when compared to Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter Nights, or even Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect was subpar at best. I ranked it barely above the linear borefest known as Jade Empire.
The one thing Mass Effect outdid all previous games was presentation. The graphics weren't superb, but good enough and the presentation, that is music, composition of cut-scenes, the "camera" angle and so on was brilliant.
The rest, I more or less agree with. Good story, very linear, mostly boring side-quests.
of what Bioware can do, I can't wait to try out their Star Wars MMO. I just bought Mass Effect for the PC tonight and I'm completely blown away. It's like taking part in a movie. It's amazing and the attention to detail is incredible. I heard that their Star Wars MMO was going to be about the stories. If it's even close to this, it'll be mind blowing.
Mass Effect is not a shining example of their game making ability.
Completely linear, side-quest planets were a waste of time since evey one consisted of the same barren world (not even trees or any types of animals except for sandworms at a base) except for one base and one or two mineral deposits. Very low replayability factor.
Graphics were decent (on the main stroy planets at least) and the story was good. But when compared to Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter Nights, or even Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect was subpar at best. I ranked it barely above the linear borefest known as Jade Empire.
The one thing Mass Effect outdid all previous games was presentation. The graphics weren't superb, but good enough and the presentation, that is music, composition of cut-scenes, the "camera" angle and so on was brilliant.
The rest, I more or less agree with. Good story, very linear, mostly boring side-quests.
But boy did I love watching those cut-scenes!
Well even jade Empire had good presentation.
Bioware is king when it comes to presentation and story. Unfortunately, without any real "meat" to flesh those things out, especially in an mmo, it's really going to get old fast.
I mean, can you imagine a fully realized Tatooine, but when you get a quest to go to Yavin it's just a temple and the rest of the planet is a barren rock with well-mowed grass in an mmo setting?
the one reason il be buying biowares kotor cause its a sp mmorpg i could care less about grouping with some crappy noob whiners all day and just play for my self and with rl freinds whenever if it was another wow clone and whatever i wouldint even bother looking into the game
I'm sorry, but you and the OP are what are destroying MMORPG's today. You're the single player crowd that wants story and not to be bother by other people when playing. That's is a RPG like NWN or Elder Scrolls. What an MMORPG should be is a world where you and other random people can come together to accomplish something and form in game friendships.
Like in Everquest, where the group of players formed together to defeat that dragon with like a quadrillion hp where the devs didn't think it was even possible, but they did it. That is an MMORPG. It is like in SWG where all items where player made, and the lowley crafter sets off to start his own shop from making cdef rifles to owning many harvesters and buildings with venders. Hiring some one to get hide or meat or bones for you so you can continue crafting and gaining skill. THAT is a MMORPG.
People want what they want. The only people destroying MMO"s today are the publisher/developers...and greed. In the Qabbala...desire/subconscious/imagination .....that which drives every person in life...is attributed to the sphere of Yesod. Game developers need to connect to their own Yesods instead of trying to frankenstein a game from pieces of everyone else's wants and be driven to create an excellent mmorpg by their own design. If done for the right reason then it will reflect in the game and likely satisfy most of the playerbase's expectations....unfortunately their desires seems to be money alone...well I guess it is a business.
Mass Effect was so goddamn weird for me. I'm used to the main storyline in Bioware games being take it or leave it. I mean BG 2, I couldn't even begin to care about the main storyline. No one, NO ONE who played the game named their favorite part as anything in the main line. It was the random shit that you could do that was awesome.
KOTOR, gods, I can't even remember that one. Evil baddie, save the galaxy, something along those lines. It was the insane dialogue, the weird quests, meatbags, etc.
Mass Effect, the main storyline was superb. Just amazing. As soon as you got off it, it was the most boring shitshow. I did like 3 side missions, then said "Screw that shit" and just did the main line. Which continued to be really cool.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
the one reason il be buying biowares kotor cause its a sp mmorpg i could care less about grouping with some crappy noob whiners all day and just play for my self and with rl freinds whenever if it was another wow clone and whatever i wouldint even bother looking into the game
I'm sorry, but you and the OP are what are destroying MMORPG's today. You're the single player crowd that wants story and not to be bother by other people when playing. That's is a RPG like NWN or Elder Scrolls. What an MMORPG should be is a world where you and other random people can come together to accomplish something and form in game friendships.
Like in Everquest, where the group of players formed together to defeat that dragon with like a quadrillion hp where the devs didn't think it was even possible, but they did it. That is an MMORPG. It is like in SWG where all items where player made, and the lowley crafter sets off to start his own shop from making cdef rifles to owning many harvesters and buildings with venders. Hiring some one to get hide or meat or bones for you so you can continue crafting and gaining skill. THAT is a MMORPG.
People want what they want. The only people destroying MMO"s today are the publisher/developers...and greed. In the Qabbala...desire/subconscious/imagination .....that which drives every person in life...is attributed to the sphere of Yesod. Game developers need to connect to their own Yesods instead of trying to frankenstein a game from pieces of everyone else's wants and be driven to create an excellent mmorpg by their own design. If done for the right reason then it will reflect in the game and likely satisfy most of the playerbase's expectations....unfortunately their desires seems to be money alone...well I guess it is a business.
the one reason il be buying biowares kotor cause its a sp mmorpg i could care less about grouping with some crappy noob whiners all day and just play for my self and with rl freinds whenever if it was another wow clone and whatever i wouldint even bother looking into the game
I'm sorry, but you and the OP are what are destroying MMORPG's today. You're the single player crowd that wants story and not to be bother by other people when playing. That's is a RPG like NWN or Elder Scrolls. What an MMORPG should be is a world where you and other random people can come together to accomplish something and form in game friendships.
Like in Everquest, where the group of players formed together to defeat that dragon with like a quadrillion hp where the devs didn't think it was even possible, but they did it. That is an MMORPG. It is like in SWG where all items where player made, and the lowley crafter sets off to start his own shop from making cdef rifles to owning many harvesters and buildings with venders. Hiring some one to get hide or meat or bones for you so you can continue crafting and gaining skill. THAT is a MMORPG.
People want what they want. The only people destroying MMO"s today are the publisher/developers...and greed. In the Qabbala...desire/subconscious/imagination .....that which drives every person in life...is attributed to the sphere of Yesod. Game developers need to connect to their own Yesods instead of trying to frankenstein a game from pieces of everyone else's wants and be driven to create an excellent mmorpg by their own design. If done for the right reason then it will reflect in the game and likely satisfy most of the playerbase's expectations....unfortunately their desires seems to be money alone...well I guess it is a business.
Yeah I agree the devs are also destroying the games, but the devs listen to people to get ideas of what
people want (or what they think they want). So they see how successfull WoW was. They think players
want to be more casual (which the majority does in my opinion, people coming over from console games
and WoW wanting to explore other genres) so the developers take away features like a good crafting
system (TR, AoC, Warhammer (not sure what to consider Wars crafting) etc. etc.) Social aspects like
player to player trading (and adding auction houses). They take away the need to group to accomplish a lot
harder objectives to get the better sword or armor piece by questing (or having expansion packs where the
new starter area leaves you with ultra rare items as opposed to the origional area, where you where
unlikely to get anything at all.
I understand why people would want to just have to quest alone and group with only friends. I don't really
have time anymore to devote to gaming in general let alone an MMO, but I know that asking to change the
way mmorpgs should be to what I need them to be isn't really fair for everyone else. I'll just stick to Fable 2
and Fallout 3 when I am strapped for time but want the multiplayer feeling.
But the reason why Tortage worked in AoC was because Funcom embedded an SP game into their MMO. The nighttime quests in Tortage are a SP game, plain and simple. A nicely done SP game, I might add, but not at all an MMO. The disappointment came when people who wanted this SP element to persist throughout the game were disappointed that the rest of the game was more of an MMO type game (and not a very well done one, but that's a topic for another thread). As I see it, the kind of storyline development that you got in Tortage was only possible because that was carved out of the MMO experience, and slipped in as SP mode. To me, that's backwards in terms of what the potential of MMOs really is. Sure, you can have better storylines if you slip in SP elements, but that comes at the expense of the MM element of the genre. In my opinion, the better direction for MMOs is not to embed SP elements in these games, but to take them in the direction of enabling more massively multiplayer content. To a certain degree, this is still currently limited by technology, but certain designers -- notably CCP -- have had the vision to actually use an MMO's strong point (its ability to bring together large numbers of people online) and use *that* as the basis of a game's vision, rather than trying to replicate SP game experiences in a massively multiplayer world. Give players the ability to establish sovereignty, achieve economic advantages and defend or fight over them, etc. This is the stuff of massively multiplayer games. I don't think it has to be hardcore PvP, but I do think that empowering the players to find the content in interaction with other players, rather than interaction primarily with NPCs, is playing to the genre's strength and unique features, rather than trying to shoehorn SP game elements into a massively multiplayer context. I don't doubt that people find the mish-mash of SP and MM to be entertaining. Look at how entertaining many people found Tortage, which was precisely such a mish-mash. But the result is a hyrbid MMO/SP game, not a full-blown MMO, and not a game that plays to, and exploits fully, the natural advantages of a game that is not just multiplayer, but *massively* multiplayer.
I totally agree with Novaseeker on this topic. Telling scripted stories to the players is not the way to take full advantage of what an mmo can achieve. The reason that games companies choose to port single-player game design into an online game is because its something they are familiar with so its easier to do. There are less variables involved and therefore less room for errors that might occur by players doing something unexpected. If the game company takes the control away from the players and instead feeds them a story with the illusion of choice then its better for them and it costs less.
However thats not to say that these basic story driven mmos should not be made. Afterall it can still be fun to play a single player game in co-op mode (which is what these mmos are). Also it can sometimes be quite nice to just turn my brain off and just immerse myself in what is effectively an online picture book. However some times I like to be able to use my own creativity in a game and currently there isnt really much scope for that in mmos especially when I am plonked into someone elses prwritten story.
I think that as other more advanced and complex mmos get made that actually give players REAL freedom of choice rather than the "illusion" of it then people might become aware of how shallow and limited these story driven mmos actually are? Afterall why would someone bother playing a game that provides a story that "appears" to be a gameworld when there is a game out that actually IS a gameworld where the players actions can really shape what happens in it? Would you rather take partial control of an actor in a scripted play or would you rather act out whatever part you like in an ever changing play in which the story is always different? In other words do you want someone else to think for you or would you prefer to think for yourself? I suppose the answer to that question comes down to how creative or lazy you are as a person.
I totally agree with Novaseeker on this topic. Telling scripted stories to the players is not the way to take full advantage of what an mmo can achieve. The reason that games companies choose to port single-player game design into an online game is because its something they are familiar with so its easier to do. There are less variables involved and therefore less room for errors that might occur by players doing something unexpected. If the game company takes the control away from the players and instead feeds them a story with the illusion of choice then its better for them and it costs less. However thats not to say that these basic story driven mmos should not be made. Afterall it can still be fun to play a single player game in co-op mode (which is what these mmos are). Also it can sometimes be quite nice to just turn my brain off and just immerse myself in what is effectively an online picture book. However some times I like to be able to use my own creativity in a game and currently there isnt really much scope for that in mmos especially when I am plonked into someone elses prwritten story.
I totally disagree. A game is about being fun and entertaining players. Scripted stories do that with flying colors (WOTLK has many examples of that by the used of instances and phasing technology). It is a direction that should be pushed since it makes good fun games.
I would much much rather play co-op with a group on some professionally crafted story-quest than some "user-generated" content.
It's like reading a book. Have you ever read a book with someone else? It would be horrible, because you'd never agree on when to turn the page. Or what if the otehr person wants to go back and reread a section of Chapter 3, but you're ready for Chapter 5?
LOL, actually I have. My wife and I read to each other, and it's a wonderful experience IMO. We never have a problem with it because we have a system -- she reads a little and then I read a little. We SHARE the experience and it's great.
I firmly believe that this could work in an MMO environment if implemented right and the correct systems were in place to support it. There's enough people out there that aren't in a rush to just kill everything and who are interested in lore and story to support it. Certainly, it would be a niche MMO, but I think the niche is much larger than many people think.
What you described in your repsonse seems to be what's wrong with MMOs IMO. Forget the story and the world, just focus on the game play. In my experience, even great gameplay games can feel shallow and empty without a detailed and well thought out world to play in.
Anywho, that's my take on it. MMOs simply have to evolve and improve from the same old mold we've been getting spoon fed for years. Whether it be a sandbox MMO, a story driven quest based game, or whatever, it needs to be better than what we have now.
totally. I must admit Deathstrike2 the more you post the more i think you need to get out of my head......
I totally agree with Novaseeker on this topic. Telling scripted stories to the players is not the way to take full advantage of what an mmo can achieve. The reason that games companies choose to port single-player game design into an online game is because its something they are familiar with so its easier to do. There are less variables involved and therefore less room for errors that might occur by players doing something unexpected. If the game company takes the control away from the players and instead feeds them a story with the illusion of choice then its better for them and it costs less. However thats not to say that these basic story driven mmos should not be made. Afterall it can still be fun to play a single player game in co-op mode (which is what these mmos are). Also it can sometimes be quite nice to just turn my brain off and just immerse myself in what is effectively an online picture book. However some times I like to be able to use my own creativity in a game and currently there isnt really much scope for that in mmos especially when I am plonked into someone elses prwritten story.
I totally disagree. A game is about being fun and entertaining players. Scripted stories do that with flying colors (WOTLK has many examples of that by the used of instances and phasing technology). It is a direction that should be pushed since it makes good fun games.
I would much much rather play co-op with a group on some professionally crafted story-quest than some "user-generated" content.
(real question not ment to be mean) Then why don't you just play multiplayer games? It's weird to me, because it's like MMORPG's are suppose to emulate a fantasy world (MMO Part) with custom avatars that you can craft to your liking (RPG part). Why would you even consider playing knowing full and well that they are the opposite of what you want? (which i assume is a single player story line in coop mode)
I totally agree with Novaseeker on this topic. Telling scripted stories to the players is not the way to take full advantage of what an mmo can achieve. The reason that games companies choose to port single-player game design into an online game is because its something they are familiar with so its easier to do. There are less variables involved and therefore less room for errors that might occur by players doing something unexpected. If the game company takes the control away from the players and instead feeds them a story with the illusion of choice then its better for them and it costs less. However thats not to say that these basic story driven mmos should not be made. Afterall it can still be fun to play a single player game in co-op mode (which is what these mmos are). Also it can sometimes be quite nice to just turn my brain off and just immerse myself in what is effectively an online picture book. However some times I like to be able to use my own creativity in a game and currently there isnt really much scope for that in mmos especially when I am plonked into someone elses prwritten story.
I totally disagree. A game is about being fun and entertaining players. Scripted stories do that with flying colors (WOTLK has many examples of that by the used of instances and phasing technology). It is a direction that should be pushed since it makes good fun games.
I would much much rather play co-op with a group on some professionally crafted story-quest than some "user-generated" content.
(real question not ment to be mean) Then why don't you just play multiplayer games? It's weird to me, because it's like MMORPG's are suppose to emulate a fantasy world (MMO Part) with custom avatars that you can craft to your liking (RPG part). Why would you even consider playing knowing full and well that they are the opposite of what you want? (which i assume is a single player story line in coop mode)
I do play SP/MP games too, but many MMOs are like that now. I like MMOs because they usually have MORE content (just look at WOTLK ... huge amount of things to do) and all the PvE focused MMO is exactly what i want.
MMO (or Diablo 3 when it comes out) also last longer, and have continuity for my character. I also like the player economy (particularly AH). I am playing Fallout 3, but it won't last a fraction as long as WOW (or LOTR).
I totally agree with Novaseeker on this topic. Telling scripted stories to the players is not the way to take full advantage of what an mmo can achieve. The reason that games companies choose to port single-player game design into an online game is because its something they are familiar with so its easier to do. There are less variables involved and therefore less room for errors that might occur by players doing something unexpected. If the game company takes the control away from the players and instead feeds them a story with the illusion of choice then its better for them and it costs less. However thats not to say that these basic story driven mmos should not be made. Afterall it can still be fun to play a single player game in co-op mode (which is what these mmos are). Also it can sometimes be quite nice to just turn my brain off and just immerse myself in what is effectively an online picture book. However some times I like to be able to use my own creativity in a game and currently there isnt really much scope for that in mmos especially when I am plonked into someone elses prwritten story.
I totally disagree. A game is about being fun and entertaining players. Scripted stories do that with flying colors (WOTLK has many examples of that by the used of instances and phasing technology). It is a direction that should be pushed since it makes good fun games.
I would much much rather play co-op with a group on some professionally crafted story-quest than some "user-generated" content.
(real question not ment to be mean) Then why don't you just play multiplayer games? It's weird to me, because it's like MMORPG's are suppose to emulate a fantasy world (MMO Part) with custom avatars that you can craft to your liking (RPG part). Why would you even consider playing knowing full and well that they are the opposite of what you want? (which i assume is a single player story line in coop mode)
I do play SP/MP games too, but many MMOs are like that now. I like MMOs because they usually have MORE content (just look at WOTLK ... huge amount of things to do) and all the PvE focused MMO is exactly what i want.
MMO (or Diablo 3 when it comes out) also last longer, and have continuity for my character. I also like the player economy (particularly AH). I am playing Fallout 3, but it won't last a fraction as long as WOW (or LOTR).
So it's that your more of a fan of open ended RPG's like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Diablo etc. but they don't have enough content so you go to MMOs?
What MMOs do you play? I am curious because, I get what your saying and I see your side of view. The thing is that I play MMORPG's for a different reason. I play for the experience of being the person I made. Experiencing what he experiences through the fantasy world of the game. I don't really play for content as in epic armor or quests. Hell I don't really roleplay (most roleplaying I like to do is just not mention the world outside of the game world). I play for the immersive experience.
Which is comepletley gone in MMOs now as I knew it once.
I totally agree with Novaseeker on this topic. Telling scripted stories to the players is not the way to take full advantage of what an mmo can achieve. The reason that games companies choose to port single-player game design into an online game is because its something they are familiar with so its easier to do. There are less variables involved and therefore less room for errors that might occur by players doing something unexpected. If the game company takes the control away from the players and instead feeds them a story with the illusion of choice then its better for them and it costs less. However thats not to say that these basic story driven mmos should not be made. Afterall it can still be fun to play a single player game in co-op mode (which is what these mmos are). Also it can sometimes be quite nice to just turn my brain off and just immerse myself in what is effectively an online picture book. However some times I like to be able to use my own creativity in a game and currently there isnt really much scope for that in mmos especially when I am plonked into someone elses prwritten story.
I totally disagree. A game is about being fun and entertaining players. Scripted stories do that with flying colors (WOTLK has many examples of that by the used of instances and phasing technology). It is a direction that should be pushed since it makes good fun games.
I would much much rather play co-op with a group on some professionally crafted story-quest than some "user-generated" content.
(real question not ment to be mean) Then why don't you just play multiplayer games? It's weird to me, because it's like MMORPG's are suppose to emulate a fantasy world (MMO Part) with custom avatars that you can craft to your liking (RPG part). Why would you even consider playing knowing full and well that they are the opposite of what you want? (which i assume is a single player story line in coop mode)
I do play SP/MP games too, but many MMOs are like that now. I like MMOs because they usually have MORE content (just look at WOTLK ... huge amount of things to do) and all the PvE focused MMO is exactly what i want.
MMO (or Diablo 3 when it comes out) also last longer, and have continuity for my character. I also like the player economy (particularly AH). I am playing Fallout 3, but it won't last a fraction as long as WOW (or LOTR).
So it's that your more of a fan of open ended RPG's like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Diablo etc. but they don't have enough content so you go to MMOs?
What MMOs do you play? I am curious because, I get what your saying and I see your side of view. The thing is that I play MMORPG's for a different reason. I play for the experience of being the person I made. Experiencing what he experiences through the fantasy world of the game. I don't really play for content as in epic armor or quests. Hell I don't really roleplay (most roleplaying I like to do is just not mention the world outside of the game world). I play for the immersive experience.
Which is comepletley gone in MMOs now as I knew it once.
Hmmmm I have the same view as Sidebuster here. Basicly what we have are single player story driven rpgs and multiplayer story driven rpgs. Where is the mmo option? It seems very one sided to me.
So people like Nariusseldon are currently getting a really good deal. He can play a single player game which tells him a story or he can log online and be told a story and have some company along the way. Well thats great for people that only want an online interactive book but what about people like myself who want to have more freedom and choice?
I would love to play an online game that is actually a real mmo where I dont have to read sections of an online book that stays the same every time. How about being able to do things in the game that actually changes the game for the other players? How about actually being able to roleplay a character for once? By that I dont mean just typing meaningless crap into the chat channel and feebly pretending to act out something that cant actually happen in the game. I mean roleplaying with my actions. I want to have the option to befriend the tribe of demons that all the other players are busy killing for exp and gear. I want to be able to take sides and attempt to change what happens in the gameworld. Actually I would like to actually play in a proper gameworld for once rather than be told a linear story about being in one.
The reason the gameworlds in these mmos are static and unchangeable is because they are not gameworlds at all. They are just simple stories designed to look like a world......and because the story has already been written the players cant actually do anything except read their way through it. Every player reads the same story. Its pretty daft actually. Is this what online gaming is all about? I dont think so. I think as more open free roaming games come into existence we will slowly start to see the story driven games move back to where they belong in single player games.......BUT these single player games will have multiplayer options built into them so players can play them online.
So we will have single player games with online capabilities (which is what mmos are now) and real mmos where the players can actually roleplay properly and go on their own adventures. These mmos will still have the "environment" to explore and play with but it will be the players actions which set off events in the game by interacting with the environment and each other rather than having the environment telling the players what to do and what not to do.
Just my thoughts. It just seems natural to me that online games will evolve to allow more freedom to the players rather than go the opposite direction and restrict them by forcing pre-written stories upon them. I'm rather bored of seeing things like "Have you done that quest yet? No? Ahh well I have. Its really good. You will love it when you get to the boss. Let me tell you all about it". Every player has had exactly the same game experience as you. Thats not an adventure.
You guys act like there aren't any other regular MMO's coming down the pike, but there are tons of them coming in 2009 and 2010. One single MMO by Bioware is not the end of your favorite type of game play, stop acting like it's the end of the genre. You have quite a few regular MMO's to play with currently and more coming soon, as a matter of fact, you guys have the lion's share of games, why begrudge us the one or two that cater to our preferences? Talk about arrogant and stingy.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Hmmmm I have the same view as Sidebuster here. Basicly what we have are single player story driven rpgs and multiplayer story driven rpgs. Where is the mmo option? It seems very one sided to me. So people like Nariusseldon are currently getting a really good deal. He can play a single player game which tells him a story or he can log online and be told a story and have some company along the way. Well thats great for people that only want an online interactive book but what about people like myself who want to have more freedom and choice? I would love to play an online game that is actually a real mmo where I dont have to read sections of an online book that stays the same every time. How about being able to do things in the game that actually changes the game for the other players? How about actually being able to roleplay a character for once? By that I dont mean just typing meaningless crap into the chat channel and feebly pretending to act out something that cant actually happen in the game. I mean roleplaying with my actions. I want to have the option to befriend the tribe of demons that all the other players are busy killing for exp and gear. I want to be able to take sides and attempt to change what happens in the gameworld. Actually I would like to actually play in a proper gameworld for once rather than be told a linear story about being in one. The reason the gameworlds in these mmos are static and unchangeable is because they are not gameworlds at all. They are just simple stories designed to look like a world......and because the story has already been written the players cant actually do anything except read their way through it. Every player reads the same story. Its pretty daft actually. Is this what online gaming is all about? I dont think so. I think as more open free roaming games come into existence we will slowly start to see the story driven games move back to where they belong in single player games.......BUT these single player games will have multiplayer options built into them so players can play them online. So we will have single player games with online capabilities (which is what mmos are now) and real mmos where the players can actually roleplay properly and go on their own adventures. These mmos will still have the "environment" to explore and play with but it will be the players actions which set off events in the game by interacting with the environment and each other rather than having the environment telling the players what to do and what not to do. Just my thoughts. It just seems natural to me that online games will evolve to allow more freedom to the players rather than go the opposite direction and restrict them by forcing pre-written stories upon them. I'm rather bored of seeing things like "Have you done that quest yet? No? Ahh well I have. Its really good. You will love it when you get to the boss. Let me tell you all about it". Every player has had exactly the same game experience as you. Thats not an adventure.
I agree totally.
The core strength of MMOs is not being "multiplayer". Many SP games have MP mode. The key advantage of MMOs is that they can be *massively* multiplayer -- something that enables things from empire building to politics, fleet warfare to diplomacy, market manipulation to cartels. And so on. All of these things that can happen when you set a large number of human beings loose in a virtual world where they can compete and excel (or fail).
I do agree that story based games are entertaining, no doubt. I enjoy them, too. But they don't use the real strengths of the genre, its real capabilities. They are a cheap trick, in a way: a multiplayer mode of a SP game with more content. That was not the idea of either UO or EQ, but it became the idea with WoW, when everything became tighter, more linear and so forth.
The best example I can think of with respect to this relates to EVE. I played EVE for about 4 years, and eventually it got old and I no longer play for a variety of reasons, but one thing about EVE was that the memories, the stories, the history ... is all pretty much player driven. EVE isn't purely player driven, there are NPCs and missions and storyline events. But the real action in the game is player made. People have made legends for themselves in that game -- some people are known server-wide, which means hundreds of thousands of people know who they are. That isn't possible in a multiplayer mode of an SP game that you play with your 5 best friends (which is the way many people play contemporary MMOs). It's possible because the game is *massively* multiplayer. *That* is the strength of this genre, that is its promise, that is its distinction.
It's also not nearly as popular as the story driven SP emulating online RPGs that call themselves MMORPGs currently. But that's fine. The audience for virtual world type games with player driven content has always been smaller because most people want to be entertained, and don't see making their own content as entertainment (they see it as work). But there is nevertheless still a market for it, and smart developers will tap it well if they can execute a well done game with that kind of approach to the genre, one which emphasizes its strengths.
I agree totally. The core strength of MMOs is not being "multiplayer". Many SP games have MP mode. The key advantage of MMOs is that they can be *massively* multiplayer -- something that enables things from empire building to politics, fleet warfare to diplomacy, market manipulation to cartels. And so on. All of these things that can happen when you set a large number of human beings loose in a virtual world where they can compete and excel (or fail). I do agree that story based games are entertaining, no doubt. I enjoy them, too. But they don't use the real strengths of the genre, its real capabilities. They are a cheap trick, in a way: a multiplayer mode of a SP game with more content. That was not the idea of either UO or EQ, but it became the idea with WoW, when everything became tighter, more linear and so forth. The best example I can think of with respect to this relates to EVE. I played EVE for about 4 years, and eventually it got old and I no longer play for a variety of reasons, but one thing about EVE was that the memories, the stories, the history ... is all pretty much player driven. EVE isn't purely player driven, there are NPCs and missions and storyline events. But the real action in the game is player made. People have made legends for themselves in that game -- some people are known server-wide, which means hundreds of thousands of people know who they are. That isn't possible in a multiplayer mode of an SP game that you play with your 5 best friends (which is the way many people play contemporary MMOs). It's possible because the game is *massively* multiplayer. *That* is the strength of this genre, that is its promise, that is its distinction. It's also not nearly as popular as the story driven SP emulating online RPGs that call themselves MMORPGs currently. But that's fine. The audience for virtual world type games with player driven content has always been smaller because most people want to be entertained, and don't see making their own content as entertainment (they see it as work). But there is nevertheless still a market for it, and smart developers will tap it well if they can execute a well done game with that kind of approach to the genre, one which emphasizes its strengths.
Well, I'm glad I'm note the only one who thinks this way. I am in no way trying to rain on the parade of casual mmo'ers. The thing is though; whether they know it or not, their voice is stronger and heard more often than the voices in my camp. So when the casual groups start getting heard, they devs listen.
When you say, "I don't want to spend X amount of time looking for a group/ traveling/ crafting/ getting the best gear, I want to be right in on the action from the start and I want to make it to the end withen the first week of playing" The devs listen. They make Tabula Rasa. They make Age of Conan and Warhammer. What have we gotten so far that we have been asking for? Darkfall? Please, that game isn't even out yet.
Comments
But the reason why Tortage worked in AoC was because Funcom embedded an SP game into their MMO. The nighttime quests in Tortage are a SP game, plain and simple. A nicely done SP game, I might add, but not at all an MMO. The disappointment came when people who wanted this SP element to persist throughout the game were disappointed that the rest of the game was more of an MMO type game (and not a very well done one, but that's a topic for another thread). As I see it, the kind of storyline development that you got in Tortage was only possible because that was carved out of the MMO experience, and slipped in as SP mode. To me, that's backwards in terms of what the potential of MMOs really is. Sure, you can have better storylines if you slip in SP elements, but that comes at the expense of the MM element of the genre.
In my opinion, the better direction for MMOs is not to embed SP elements in these games, but to take them in the direction of enabling more massively multiplayer content. To a certain degree, this is still currently limited by technology, but certain designers -- notably CCP -- have had the vision to actually use an MMO's strong point (its ability to bring together large numbers of people online) and use *that* as the basis of a game's vision, rather than trying to replicate SP game experiences in a massively multiplayer world. Give players the ability to establish sovereignty, achieve economic advantages and defend or fight over them, etc. This is the stuff of massively multiplayer games. I don't think it has to be hardcore PvP, but I do think that empowering the players to find the content in interaction with other players, rather than interaction primarily with NPCs, is playing to the genre's strength and unique features, rather than trying to shoehorn SP game elements into a massively multiplayer context.
I don't doubt that people find the mish-mash of SP and MM to be entertaining. Look at how entertaining many people found Tortage, which was precisely such a mish-mash. But the result is a hyrbid MMO/SP game, not a full-blown MMO, and not a game that plays to, and exploits fully, the natural advantages of a game that is not just multiplayer, but *massively* multiplayer.
Really? The crafter and his group stood at the crafting station and pressed buttons together to make that gun? More likely he stood there SOLO and crafted it...
You can't do it exactly like that in SWG but you can have different people making different parts in an assembly line. You can do that in Wurm Online though. Choosing to solo is fine, I do it ALL the time, but the game you all think is good has little option for grouping with other people (other than friends) which just makes it Mass Effect Multiplayer.
Are you sure people with narrowly defined definitions for what a MMORPG is, or should be, aren't what's ruining MMORPG's today? MMORPG's are bigger than just group play. At best MMORPG's are a living, breathing society and just like real societies, there are people who like to socialize and people who don't. THAT is a MMORPG.
Yes I'm sure people with narrowly defined definitions are not ruining MMORPGs. MMORPG'S ARE a living, breathing society which have solo players. But see, when you make a kotor mmo that you can play with your friends or solo, you don't have a living breathing world. You have a tiny box of a game area. There is no society, you're going to have a hard time socializing when no one wants to talk to you and the only people who you group with are your friends and yourself. So you're going to have a multiplayer mode in a single player game.
Solo play in MMORPGs doesn't exclude group play. Or do you get easily upset when Billy won't play with you...
right...
Just wanted to drop in and respond to the mention of Neverwinter Nights a few times here as I tend to see it come up as a single player quest driven adventure in response to 'solo MMOs'. The best part of Neverwinter for me was the player created persistent online worlds and multiplayer modules.
Just a little defense for the game
Well, as I said earlier, this would be a niche, and obviously doesn't sound like your cup of tea.
I am curious to hear whether or not you like questing in MMOs. If so, do you read the quest text? After doing the quests, have you changed the world one iota? I'm not advocating changing the world here -- just giving us more involved, deep quests and meaningful interaction with the quest givers. I am at a loss as to how anyone could see that as a bad thing in MMOs.
Take AoC for example. The cut scenes and voice acting in the first 20 levels is superb. It added a lot to the immersion for me, and it's a big reason why the game felt broken after level 20 and Tortage. If Bioware can find a way to build on that experience and make it better and workable for a group, I think that'd definitely be a win for the MMO genre.
I enjoy playing single player RPGs. Loved KOTOR, 1 and 2, played both all the way through more than once. I'm really liking Fallout 3. I listen to, or read all the quest dialog, and enjoy the story and the missions I'm doing.
I never read quest dialog in MMORPGs. What's the point? Do X, get Y. What difference does the story make? It's still do X, get Y.
Not so in single player games. You get a quest in Fallout 3 where you can difuse a bomb and get rewarded, or someone else will pay you to set it off. It's in the middle of a town. If you difuse it, you get a room in the town free of charge (which matters because you can sleep and regain hit points). If you blow it up, no more town, no trading, no room. So it makes a difference, and it pays the read the quest and what it's all about.
In MMOrpgS THE only thing that changes is what you get, xp, gear, etc. Do X, get Y. You can make up a billion stories about it, but it's still the same, Do X, get Y. Nothing else changes, so why would I read that crap?
How am I going to play football, if Billy is riding his motorcycle on the football field?
I don't want Billy to join the team, just get his bike off the field so I can play the game.
What you're saying is well, we want to let you and Billy play on the same field, so we've changed the rules of Football, so that Billy can ride his motorcycle on the field while you play.
Well, then it ain't football no more.
...deleted out of stupid confusion over Bethesda & Bioware=) Duh!
Oblivion......F3????
What world are you living in?
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Mass Effect is not a shining example of their game making ability.
Completely linear, side-quest planets were a waste of time since evey one consisted of the same barren world (not even trees or any types of animals except for sandworms at a base and apparently all the grass was perfectly mowed by someone) except for one base and one or two mineral deposits. Very low replayability factor.
Graphics were decent (on the main stroy planets at least) and the story was good. But when compared to Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter Nights, or even Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect was subpar at best. I ranked it barely above the linear borefest known as Jade Empire.
Mass Effect is not a shining example of their game making ability.
Completely linear, side-quest planets were a waste of time since evey one consisted of the same barren world (not even trees or any types of animals except for sandworms at a base) except for one base and one or two mineral deposits. Very low replayability factor.
Graphics were decent (on the main stroy planets at least) and the story was good. But when compared to Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter Nights, or even Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect was subpar at best. I ranked it barely above the linear borefest known as Jade Empire.
The one thing Mass Effect outdid all previous games was presentation. The graphics weren't superb, but good enough and the presentation, that is music, composition of cut-scenes, the "camera" angle and so on was brilliant.
The rest, I more or less agree with. Good story, very linear, mostly boring side-quests.
But boy did I love watching those cut-scenes!
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Mass Effect is not a shining example of their game making ability.
Completely linear, side-quest planets were a waste of time since evey one consisted of the same barren world (not even trees or any types of animals except for sandworms at a base) except for one base and one or two mineral deposits. Very low replayability factor.
Graphics were decent (on the main stroy planets at least) and the story was good. But when compared to Baldurs Gate or Neverwinter Nights, or even Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect was subpar at best. I ranked it barely above the linear borefest known as Jade Empire.
The one thing Mass Effect outdid all previous games was presentation. The graphics weren't superb, but good enough and the presentation, that is music, composition of cut-scenes, the "camera" angle and so on was brilliant.
The rest, I more or less agree with. Good story, very linear, mostly boring side-quests.
But boy did I love watching those cut-scenes!
Well even jade Empire had good presentation.
Bioware is king when it comes to presentation and story. Unfortunately, without any real "meat" to flesh those things out, especially in an mmo, it's really going to get old fast.
I mean, can you imagine a fully realized Tatooine, but when you get a quest to go to Yavin it's just a temple and the rest of the planet is a barren rock with well-mowed grass in an mmo setting?
I'm sorry, but you and the OP are what are destroying MMORPG's today. You're the single player crowd that wants story and not to be bother by other people when playing. That's is a RPG like NWN or Elder Scrolls. What an MMORPG should be is a world where you and other random people can come together to accomplish something and form in game friendships.
Like in Everquest, where the group of players formed together to defeat that dragon with like a quadrillion hp where the devs didn't think it was even possible, but they did it. That is an MMORPG. It is like in SWG where all items where player made, and the lowley crafter sets off to start his own shop from making cdef rifles to owning many harvesters and buildings with venders. Hiring some one to get hide or meat or bones for you so you can continue crafting and gaining skill. THAT is a MMORPG.
People want what they want. The only people destroying MMO"s today are the publisher/developers...and greed. In the Qabbala...desire/subconscious/imagination .....that which drives every person in life...is attributed to the sphere of Yesod. Game developers need to connect to their own Yesods instead of trying to frankenstein a game from pieces of everyone else's wants and be driven to create an excellent mmorpg by their own design. If done for the right reason then it will reflect in the game and likely satisfy most of the playerbase's expectations....unfortunately their desires seems to be money alone...well I guess it is a business.
Mass Effect was so goddamn weird for me. I'm used to the main storyline in Bioware games being take it or leave it. I mean BG 2, I couldn't even begin to care about the main storyline. No one, NO ONE who played the game named their favorite part as anything in the main line. It was the random shit that you could do that was awesome.
KOTOR, gods, I can't even remember that one. Evil baddie, save the galaxy, something along those lines. It was the insane dialogue, the weird quests, meatbags, etc.
Mass Effect, the main storyline was superb. Just amazing. As soon as you got off it, it was the most boring shitshow. I did like 3 side missions, then said "Screw that shit" and just did the main line. Which continued to be really cool.
In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson
I'm sorry, but you and the OP are what are destroying MMORPG's today. You're the single player crowd that wants story and not to be bother by other people when playing. That's is a RPG like NWN or Elder Scrolls. What an MMORPG should be is a world where you and other random people can come together to accomplish something and form in game friendships.
Like in Everquest, where the group of players formed together to defeat that dragon with like a quadrillion hp where the devs didn't think it was even possible, but they did it. That is an MMORPG. It is like in SWG where all items where player made, and the lowley crafter sets off to start his own shop from making cdef rifles to owning many harvesters and buildings with venders. Hiring some one to get hide or meat or bones for you so you can continue crafting and gaining skill. THAT is a MMORPG.
People want what they want. The only people destroying MMO"s today are the publisher/developers...and greed. In the Qabbala...desire/subconscious/imagination .....that which drives every person in life...is attributed to the sphere of Yesod. Game developers need to connect to their own Yesods instead of trying to frankenstein a game from pieces of everyone else's wants and be driven to create an excellent mmorpg by their own design. If done for the right reason then it will reflect in the game and likely satisfy most of the playerbase's expectations....unfortunately their desires seems to be money alone...well I guess it is a business.
No greed = no games.
I'm sorry, but you and the OP are what are destroying MMORPG's today. You're the single player crowd that wants story and not to be bother by other people when playing. That's is a RPG like NWN or Elder Scrolls. What an MMORPG should be is a world where you and other random people can come together to accomplish something and form in game friendships.
Like in Everquest, where the group of players formed together to defeat that dragon with like a quadrillion hp where the devs didn't think it was even possible, but they did it. That is an MMORPG. It is like in SWG where all items where player made, and the lowley crafter sets off to start his own shop from making cdef rifles to owning many harvesters and buildings with venders. Hiring some one to get hide or meat or bones for you so you can continue crafting and gaining skill. THAT is a MMORPG.
People want what they want. The only people destroying MMO"s today are the publisher/developers...and greed. In the Qabbala...desire/subconscious/imagination .....that which drives every person in life...is attributed to the sphere of Yesod. Game developers need to connect to their own Yesods instead of trying to frankenstein a game from pieces of everyone else's wants and be driven to create an excellent mmorpg by their own design. If done for the right reason then it will reflect in the game and likely satisfy most of the playerbase's expectations....unfortunately their desires seems to be money alone...well I guess it is a business.
Yeah I agree the devs are also destroying the games, but the devs listen to people to get ideas of what
people want (or what they think they want). So they see how successfull WoW was. They think players
want to be more casual (which the majority does in my opinion, people coming over from console games
and WoW wanting to explore other genres) so the developers take away features like a good crafting
system (TR, AoC, Warhammer (not sure what to consider Wars crafting) etc. etc.) Social aspects like
player to player trading (and adding auction houses). They take away the need to group to accomplish a lot
harder objectives to get the better sword or armor piece by questing (or having expansion packs where the
new starter area leaves you with ultra rare items as opposed to the origional area, where you where
unlikely to get anything at all.
I understand why people would want to just have to quest alone and group with only friends. I don't really
have time anymore to devote to gaming in general let alone an MMO, but I know that asking to change the
way mmorpgs should be to what I need them to be isn't really fair for everyone else. I'll just stick to Fable 2
and Fallout 3 when I am strapped for time but want the multiplayer feeling.
I totally agree with Novaseeker on this topic. Telling scripted stories to the players is not the way to take full advantage of what an mmo can achieve. The reason that games companies choose to port single-player game design into an online game is because its something they are familiar with so its easier to do. There are less variables involved and therefore less room for errors that might occur by players doing something unexpected. If the game company takes the control away from the players and instead feeds them a story with the illusion of choice then its better for them and it costs less.
However thats not to say that these basic story driven mmos should not be made. Afterall it can still be fun to play a single player game in co-op mode (which is what these mmos are). Also it can sometimes be quite nice to just turn my brain off and just immerse myself in what is effectively an online picture book. However some times I like to be able to use my own creativity in a game and currently there isnt really much scope for that in mmos especially when I am plonked into someone elses prwritten story.
I think that as other more advanced and complex mmos get made that actually give players REAL freedom of choice rather than the "illusion" of it then people might become aware of how shallow and limited these story driven mmos actually are? Afterall why would someone bother playing a game that provides a story that "appears" to be a gameworld when there is a game out that actually IS a gameworld where the players actions can really shape what happens in it? Would you rather take partial control of an actor in a scripted play or would you rather act out whatever part you like in an ever changing play in which the story is always different? In other words do you want someone else to think for you or would you prefer to think for yourself? I suppose the answer to that question comes down to how creative or lazy you are as a person.
I totally disagree. A game is about being fun and entertaining players. Scripted stories do that with flying colors (WOTLK has many examples of that by the used of instances and phasing technology). It is a direction that should be pushed since it makes good fun games.
I would much much rather play co-op with a group on some professionally crafted story-quest than some "user-generated" content.
LOL, actually I have. My wife and I read to each other, and it's a wonderful experience IMO. We never have a problem with it because we have a system -- she reads a little and then I read a little. We SHARE the experience and it's great.
I firmly believe that this could work in an MMO environment if implemented right and the correct systems were in place to support it. There's enough people out there that aren't in a rush to just kill everything and who are interested in lore and story to support it. Certainly, it would be a niche MMO, but I think the niche is much larger than many people think.
What you described in your repsonse seems to be what's wrong with MMOs IMO. Forget the story and the world, just focus on the game play. In my experience, even great gameplay games can feel shallow and empty without a detailed and well thought out world to play in.
Anywho, that's my take on it. MMOs simply have to evolve and improve from the same old mold we've been getting spoon fed for years. Whether it be a sandbox MMO, a story driven quest based game, or whatever, it needs to be better than what we have now.
I totally disagree. A game is about being fun and entertaining players. Scripted stories do that with flying colors (WOTLK has many examples of that by the used of instances and phasing technology). It is a direction that should be pushed since it makes good fun games.
I would much much rather play co-op with a group on some professionally crafted story-quest than some "user-generated" content.
(real question not ment to be mean) Then why don't you just play multiplayer games? It's weird to me, because it's like MMORPG's are suppose to emulate a fantasy world (MMO Part) with custom avatars that you can craft to your liking (RPG part). Why would you even consider playing knowing full and well that they are the opposite of what you want? (which i assume is a single player story line in coop mode)
I totally disagree. A game is about being fun and entertaining players. Scripted stories do that with flying colors (WOTLK has many examples of that by the used of instances and phasing technology). It is a direction that should be pushed since it makes good fun games.
I would much much rather play co-op with a group on some professionally crafted story-quest than some "user-generated" content.
(real question not ment to be mean) Then why don't you just play multiplayer games? It's weird to me, because it's like MMORPG's are suppose to emulate a fantasy world (MMO Part) with custom avatars that you can craft to your liking (RPG part). Why would you even consider playing knowing full and well that they are the opposite of what you want? (which i assume is a single player story line in coop mode)
I do play SP/MP games too, but many MMOs are like that now. I like MMOs because they usually have MORE content (just look at WOTLK ... huge amount of things to do) and all the PvE focused MMO is exactly what i want.
MMO (or Diablo 3 when it comes out) also last longer, and have continuity for my character. I also like the player economy (particularly AH). I am playing Fallout 3, but it won't last a fraction as long as WOW (or LOTR).
I totally disagree. A game is about being fun and entertaining players. Scripted stories do that with flying colors (WOTLK has many examples of that by the used of instances and phasing technology). It is a direction that should be pushed since it makes good fun games.
I would much much rather play co-op with a group on some professionally crafted story-quest than some "user-generated" content.
(real question not ment to be mean) Then why don't you just play multiplayer games? It's weird to me, because it's like MMORPG's are suppose to emulate a fantasy world (MMO Part) with custom avatars that you can craft to your liking (RPG part). Why would you even consider playing knowing full and well that they are the opposite of what you want? (which i assume is a single player story line in coop mode)
I do play SP/MP games too, but many MMOs are like that now. I like MMOs because they usually have MORE content (just look at WOTLK ... huge amount of things to do) and all the PvE focused MMO is exactly what i want.
MMO (or Diablo 3 when it comes out) also last longer, and have continuity for my character. I also like the player economy (particularly AH). I am playing Fallout 3, but it won't last a fraction as long as WOW (or LOTR).
So it's that your more of a fan of open ended RPG's like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Diablo etc. but they don't have enough content so you go to MMOs?
What MMOs do you play? I am curious because, I get what your saying and I see your side of view. The thing is that I play MMORPG's for a different reason. I play for the experience of being the person I made. Experiencing what he experiences through the fantasy world of the game. I don't really play for content as in epic armor or quests. Hell I don't really roleplay (most roleplaying I like to do is just not mention the world outside of the game world). I play for the immersive experience.
Which is comepletley gone in MMOs now as I knew it once.
I totally disagree. A game is about being fun and entertaining players. Scripted stories do that with flying colors (WOTLK has many examples of that by the used of instances and phasing technology). It is a direction that should be pushed since it makes good fun games.
I would much much rather play co-op with a group on some professionally crafted story-quest than some "user-generated" content.
(real question not ment to be mean) Then why don't you just play multiplayer games? It's weird to me, because it's like MMORPG's are suppose to emulate a fantasy world (MMO Part) with custom avatars that you can craft to your liking (RPG part). Why would you even consider playing knowing full and well that they are the opposite of what you want? (which i assume is a single player story line in coop mode)
I do play SP/MP games too, but many MMOs are like that now. I like MMOs because they usually have MORE content (just look at WOTLK ... huge amount of things to do) and all the PvE focused MMO is exactly what i want.
MMO (or Diablo 3 when it comes out) also last longer, and have continuity for my character. I also like the player economy (particularly AH). I am playing Fallout 3, but it won't last a fraction as long as WOW (or LOTR).
So it's that your more of a fan of open ended RPG's like Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Diablo etc. but they don't have enough content so you go to MMOs?
What MMOs do you play? I am curious because, I get what your saying and I see your side of view. The thing is that I play MMORPG's for a different reason. I play for the experience of being the person I made. Experiencing what he experiences through the fantasy world of the game. I don't really play for content as in epic armor or quests. Hell I don't really roleplay (most roleplaying I like to do is just not mention the world outside of the game world). I play for the immersive experience.
Which is comepletley gone in MMOs now as I knew it once.
Hmmmm I have the same view as Sidebuster here. Basicly what we have are single player story driven rpgs and multiplayer story driven rpgs. Where is the mmo option? It seems very one sided to me.
So people like Nariusseldon are currently getting a really good deal. He can play a single player game which tells him a story or he can log online and be told a story and have some company along the way. Well thats great for people that only want an online interactive book but what about people like myself who want to have more freedom and choice?
I would love to play an online game that is actually a real mmo where I dont have to read sections of an online book that stays the same every time. How about being able to do things in the game that actually changes the game for the other players? How about actually being able to roleplay a character for once? By that I dont mean just typing meaningless crap into the chat channel and feebly pretending to act out something that cant actually happen in the game. I mean roleplaying with my actions. I want to have the option to befriend the tribe of demons that all the other players are busy killing for exp and gear. I want to be able to take sides and attempt to change what happens in the gameworld. Actually I would like to actually play in a proper gameworld for once rather than be told a linear story about being in one.
The reason the gameworlds in these mmos are static and unchangeable is because they are not gameworlds at all. They are just simple stories designed to look like a world......and because the story has already been written the players cant actually do anything except read their way through it. Every player reads the same story. Its pretty daft actually. Is this what online gaming is all about? I dont think so. I think as more open free roaming games come into existence we will slowly start to see the story driven games move back to where they belong in single player games.......BUT these single player games will have multiplayer options built into them so players can play them online.
So we will have single player games with online capabilities (which is what mmos are now) and real mmos where the players can actually roleplay properly and go on their own adventures. These mmos will still have the "environment" to explore and play with but it will be the players actions which set off events in the game by interacting with the environment and each other rather than having the environment telling the players what to do and what not to do.
Just my thoughts. It just seems natural to me that online games will evolve to allow more freedom to the players rather than go the opposite direction and restrict them by forcing pre-written stories upon them. I'm rather bored of seeing things like "Have you done that quest yet? No? Ahh well I have. Its really good. You will love it when you get to the boss. Let me tell you all about it". Every player has had exactly the same game experience as you. Thats not an adventure.
You guys act like there aren't any other regular MMO's coming down the pike, but there are tons of them coming in 2009 and 2010. One single MMO by Bioware is not the end of your favorite type of game play, stop acting like it's the end of the genre. You have quite a few regular MMO's to play with currently and more coming soon, as a matter of fact, you guys have the lion's share of games, why begrudge us the one or two that cater to our preferences? Talk about arrogant and stingy.
With PvE raiding, it has never been a question of being "good enough". I play games to have fun, not to be a simpering toady sitting through hour after hour of mind numbing boredom and fawning over a guild master in the hopes that he will condescend to reward me with shiny bits of loot. But in games where those people get the highest progression, anyone who doesn't do that will just be a moving target for them and I'll be damned if I'm going to pay money for the privilege. - Neanderthal
Yeah, a level based, class based, completely linear story quest driven instance-fest sounds awesome...
...not.
Guild Wars in space isn't interesting.
I agree totally.
The core strength of MMOs is not being "multiplayer". Many SP games have MP mode. The key advantage of MMOs is that they can be *massively* multiplayer -- something that enables things from empire building to politics, fleet warfare to diplomacy, market manipulation to cartels. And so on. All of these things that can happen when you set a large number of human beings loose in a virtual world where they can compete and excel (or fail).
I do agree that story based games are entertaining, no doubt. I enjoy them, too. But they don't use the real strengths of the genre, its real capabilities. They are a cheap trick, in a way: a multiplayer mode of a SP game with more content. That was not the idea of either UO or EQ, but it became the idea with WoW, when everything became tighter, more linear and so forth.
The best example I can think of with respect to this relates to EVE. I played EVE for about 4 years, and eventually it got old and I no longer play for a variety of reasons, but one thing about EVE was that the memories, the stories, the history ... is all pretty much player driven. EVE isn't purely player driven, there are NPCs and missions and storyline events. But the real action in the game is player made. People have made legends for themselves in that game -- some people are known server-wide, which means hundreds of thousands of people know who they are. That isn't possible in a multiplayer mode of an SP game that you play with your 5 best friends (which is the way many people play contemporary MMOs). It's possible because the game is *massively* multiplayer. *That* is the strength of this genre, that is its promise, that is its distinction.
It's also not nearly as popular as the story driven SP emulating online RPGs that call themselves MMORPGs currently. But that's fine. The audience for virtual world type games with player driven content has always been smaller because most people want to be entertained, and don't see making their own content as entertainment (they see it as work). But there is nevertheless still a market for it, and smart developers will tap it well if they can execute a well done game with that kind of approach to the genre, one which emphasizes its strengths.
Well, I'm glad I'm note the only one who thinks this way. I am in no way trying to rain on the parade of casual mmo'ers. The thing is though; whether they know it or not, their voice is stronger and heard more often than the voices in my camp. So when the casual groups start getting heard, they devs listen.
When you say, "I don't want to spend X amount of time looking for a group/ traveling/ crafting/ getting the best gear, I want to be right in on the action from the start and I want to make it to the end withen the first week of playing" The devs listen. They make Tabula Rasa. They make Age of Conan and Warhammer. What have we gotten so far that we have been asking for? Darkfall? Please, that game isn't even out yet.
What do we have to look forward to?