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.
The only reason real mmos are not as popular as the story driven online rpgs that we currently have is simply because developers have not been focusing on making them. As Vrazule mentioned above though there are a string of what could potentially turn out to be very good mmos on the horizon so finally we might get a taste of what a real mmo is all about. Then we will be able to fairly judge what is most popular.
I think most people who are saying they only want restricted story driven games are saying that simply because they dont know any better and are only capable of making judgements based on what they have seen. This is probably due to te fact that a lot of younger players have only ever played story driven games and have never experienced what a real mmo could be like. Its also probably because many people just lack a decent imagination. Monkey see monkey do.
I'm rather excited about the future of mmos actually. The story driven approach is just the beginning. It wont be long before we look back on all of those games and laugh at them.
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?
What do we have to look forward to? Oh quite a lot actually. At least thats what I think anyway. I think that developers might be beginning to wake up to how crap their mmos actually are. I think they are going to realise new and interesting ways of approaching mmos. Tabula Rasa, AoC and WAR are all indications that they need to stop flogging the dead story driven single player dead horse.
Dont forget that there are also other interesting mmos as well as Darkfall on their way like Earthrise, Fallen Earth, Mortal Online and Crusades. This influx of open & free roaming mmos that dont force stories on the players will hopefully open a gap in the market for decent mmos. Then the story driven PvE crap we are currently seeing will become a thing of the past. There is no way that they will be able to compete with what a real mmo can be like.
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 couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent post. I agree 100%.
Some are saying the problem is not the genre. In otherwords it's not that players that like this sort of game than immerses you in a world and allows players to control the world, rather than a shallow NPC quest grind that doesn't impact the world, are not really that small of a minority.
The problem is, devs are having a hard time designing these worlds, and no one has yet released the WoW version of such a game. That is, a sandbox style game, but polished with few of the features that dont' work, and streamlined functionality.
You can't point to one game that is an immersive sandbox style world, and say, well that game was elegantly made, it's polished, and works beautifully, but people just dont' play it. Look at al lthe examples, Ryzom, SWG, EVE, none of them come close to a having WoW polish and design elegance.
the great thing about mass effect is how it combines the COMBAT with storyline.
I really hope but also really doubt bioware are going to do this with TOR. that kind of combat would be hard but amazing in a mmo, but feels like they are making world of starwarscraft with more story.
a boring/standard mmo with a good storyline is something I'll play for a while like a singleplayer RPG, but if bioware think they'll get my sub for it they are FOOLS.
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 started with UO/EQ when MMOs are still in its infancy. And now I play WOW. From what I am seeing in WOTLK, it would last me a good many more months (i have a life, can't play much every week) before I would exhaust the content even if I don't raid. (This includes getting badge epics, craft stuff, alts, and so on). I also enjoy AH, and some PUGs dungeons and battleground style PvP.
WOW has the best, most polished, most fun content. Some of the scripted quests are really heads and shoulders above everything else i have tried. Tabular Rasa, which i played for a month (thank go it is only $5) is pretty sad.
LOTR is pretty good (i played a week on it). I probably will play seriously when I am done with WOW . And i will come back whenever there is a major content patch.
New games on the horizon that I definitely need to play includes Diablo 3 (and it is probably as good as an MMO abate *smaller* in scope) and i need to finish Fallout 3 (ignoring it after WOTLK released).
To add some variation, there are a few FPS/TPS I also want to play/finish (Dead Space, Gear of War 2 at a min).
The OP probably didn't played planescape torment , BG, icewind dale ,the witcher EE?
Mass effect has a good mains story but unfortunately RPG-LITE because you don't have allot of decisions. The side quests are really bad done with most of them , rehash textures and quests which do not contribute to the overall game.
Overall, compared to the better RPG'S, mass effect is RPG-LITE.
The op should play the witcher btw. Miles better in my opinion then mass effect.
In my opinion, since black isle went under, bioware went under. Last good game of bioware in my opinion was KOTOR. After that, they went to action games with stats and story elements.
----------------------------------------------------------- the old days, the days of gold.
representer of euhporium, shade/amity , high member of the council.
played
UO,M59,EVE,L2,AC,GW,WOW,LOTRO,SWG pre cu/nge,COH/COV, VG,TR,L1, POTBS,Neocron 1 and 2, DAOC pre TOA and age of conan
playing: EVE ONLINE Waiting for Earthrise, FE, bioware mmo, guild wars 2, DFO , mortal online , the chronicles of spellborn
The OP probably didn't played planescape torment , BG, icewind dale ,the witcher EE? Mass effect has a good mains story but unfortunately RPG-LITE because you don't have allot of decisions. The side quests are really bad done with most of them , rehash textures and quests which do not contribute to the overall game.
Overall, compared to the better RPG'S, mass effect is RPG-LITE. The op should play the witcher btw. Miles better in my opinion then mass effect.
In my opinion, since black isle went under, bioware went under. Last good game of bioware in my opinion was KOTOR. After that, they went to action games with stats and story elements.
I'm actually part way through Mass Effect at the moment. Initially it was kind of interesting but it gets very boring very quickly due to the fact that the game is more like an interactive movie than an actual game. The graphics are fantastic, the voice acting is perfect and everything looks pretty convincing.......and yet it fails to hold my interest due to the lack of interaction on the part of the player.
Everything is mapped out ahead of me and all I have to do is click on the oppropriate line of text to advance the dialogue or follow the linear path to the next cut scene or bog standard battle that always seems to play out in the same old way. Even visiting new planets has become tedious because I know in advance what its going to be like. I'm also finding the skills and abilities in Mass Effect to be extremely boring. I barely even bother using most of them.
The Witcher is indeed a lot more interesting than Mass Effect. It still tells the player a story but it allows a lot more freedom over where you choose to go.
Story telling is clearly not the way to go for mmos, especially when I have thousands of other people to play with.
Lol, well I guess we'll see about that when Bioware releases their MMO. Regardless, I just finished Mass Effect (1st time through) and I have to say I had more fun in the last week with this game than I've had in the last year with any MMO. I found it engaging, entertaining, and incredibly polished. If Bioware can bring these things to a MMO, I can hardly wait. It'll be an instant hit.
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.
Its to much console port but you prolly play consoles so you love it offcorse it was not a bad game but its a dumb down version for true PC gamers.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009..... In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
Bioware makes great SP games, but to be honest, imo, SP-izing the MMORPG even more than it has been already is a step away, yet again, from what the genre's main strengths are. But it's a very predictable progression, in the post-WoW era.
But your assuming that story telling will equate to single player experiences. I'm banking on Bioware's ability to make it work in a multi player environment. If anyone can do it, this is the company to make it happen. To me, this is the next evolution in MMO questing. The quests we have today are repetative, boring, and pretty much meaningless. Imagine an online world where you are actually part of a story, recognized by NPCs for your actions -- good and bad -- and able to affect the world around you in different ways! That's where questing based MMOs need to be heading, and I'm hoping that KOTOR will take us in that direction.
I love the idea of affecting the world around you, but if everything is instanced and 10,000 other players are doing the exact same quest it kind of kill the immersion. Allowing players to create their own story through the choices they make is a step forward, but I believe creating storybook MMOs where everyone follows the same story is a HUGE step back.
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.
Its to much console port but you prolly play consoles so you love it offcorse it was not a bad game but its a dumb down version for true PC gamers.
Not sure what ever gave you that idea, but no. I don't play consoles. My 37 year old fingers just don't work well on a xbox controller. I'm a keyboard and mouse man all the way.
I'm also a little confused as to what a "true PC gamer" is. I played Mass Effect on my PC (E6600, 4 gigs, 260GTX, Vista, 37" flat screen Dual Monitor setup), and I thought it was one of the best PC games I've ever played. If you are suggesting that there are other better games out there for the PC in the same genre, by all means, please share.
Anywho, my original point was and is that I have a lot of faith in Bioware. Their games seem pretty solid and engaging. The company is innovative and they seem to know what it takes to make a great game. They've already stated that TOR will revolve around story, and after playing Mass Effect, I'm excited to see what they come up with, because they told one hell of a story in that game and I enjoyed every minute of it.
I love the idea of affecting the world around you, but if everything is instanced and 10,000 other players are doing the exact same quest it kind of kill the immersion. Allowing players to create their own story through the choices they make is a step forward, but I believe creating storybook MMOs where everyone follows the same story is a HUGE step back.
I would agree that it would be a step back if everyone followed the same story. But then again, the majority of MMOs out today revolve around going through pretty much the same quests on alts, and all your fellow players are doing the exact same quests as well. It's kind of the same thing.
However, if Bioware does it right, they'll offer branching story lines where your actions and decisions take you in different directions from your fellow players. With each new action or decision, you branch off yet again and the story changes for you. Over the course of your career, you may branch off 1,000s of times and your story suddenly becomes very unique. Now, allow NPCs and factions to recognize your actions and choices and react to you accordingly, and it sounds like a very good thing and a huge step forward to me.
As an example, instead of go kill 10 boars and come back, you now have the option to ask why am I killing the 10 boars, maybe you don't want to do it, maybe you side with the boars and kill the quest giver. Who knows? Point is, you now have options that do not exist in most current MMOs. Exciting stuff IMO.
It may be a bad step, but it's not a step back. Because the MMO in its first days - or even its ancestor, the MUD - was never about storytelling, it was about free combat-heavy gameplay. Storytelling is a new trend in MMOs.
I'm curious to see how it will turn out. I'll admit the approach has not given the MMO much strength up to now, maybe partly because the storytelling itself has not been too involving, and maybe partly beause it's just hard to envelop players in engaging stories and still keep the massively multiplayer feeling there. I'm hoping Bioware can come up with some new way of tackling this - it's somewhat obvious a dominating main story arc as in single player RPGs won't do.
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.
I highlighted the important part here. CAN!!!!!
Not -MUST- but -CAN-. The so called single-player crowd mostly just wants to have the -option- and not be -FORCED- into grouping to accomplish anything.
That's why I say grouping should have incentives, but should never be mandatory.
Any MMORPG that requires grouping takes that percentage of the population that prefers MORE than grouping/raiding...like...
And ruins their fun.
I play MMORPGs for the larger worlds that is available in SP RPGs. But my idea of fun isn't wasting my life waiting on groups to form; dealing with rushers who (as the poster clearly illustrated) run through the quests so they can get the loot faster, not caring about the RPG aspect of the MMO; and rude people who literally roleplay evil.
If I need "socializing" that's what the IMs and XFire is for, otherwise play time is for exploring maps; finding out different ways to slaughter the enemy; solving riddles and puzzles; and slaying that impossible dragon yourself as a mark of personal achievement AND tenacity.
Comments
Originally posted by Novaseeker
Originally posted by neonwire
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.
The only reason real mmos are not as popular as the story driven online rpgs that we currently have is simply because developers have not been focusing on making them. As Vrazule mentioned above though there are a string of what could potentially turn out to be very good mmos on the horizon so finally we might get a taste of what a real mmo is all about. Then we will be able to fairly judge what is most popular.
I think most people who are saying they only want restricted story driven games are saying that simply because they dont know any better and are only capable of making judgements based on what they have seen. This is probably due to te fact that a lot of younger players have only ever played story driven games and have never experienced what a real mmo could be like. Its also probably because many people just lack a decent imagination. Monkey see monkey do.
I'm rather excited about the future of mmos actually. The story driven approach is just the beginning. It wont be long before we look back on all of those games and laugh at them.
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?
What do we have to look forward to? Oh quite a lot actually. At least thats what I think anyway. I think that developers might be beginning to wake up to how crap their mmos actually are. I think they are going to realise new and interesting ways of approaching mmos. Tabula Rasa, AoC and WAR are all indications that they need to stop flogging the dead story driven single player dead horse.
Dont forget that there are also other interesting mmos as well as Darkfall on their way like Earthrise, Fallen Earth, Mortal Online and Crusades. This influx of open & free roaming mmos that dont force stories on the players will hopefully open a gap in the market for decent mmos. Then the story driven PvE crap we are currently seeing will become a thing of the past. There is no way that they will be able to compete with what a real mmo can be like.
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 couldn't have said it better myself. Excellent post. I agree 100%.
Some are saying the problem is not the genre. In otherwords it's not that players that like this sort of game than immerses you in a world and allows players to control the world, rather than a shallow NPC quest grind that doesn't impact the world, are not really that small of a minority.
The problem is, devs are having a hard time designing these worlds, and no one has yet released the WoW version of such a game. That is, a sandbox style game, but polished with few of the features that dont' work, and streamlined functionality.
You can't point to one game that is an immersive sandbox style world, and say, well that game was elegantly made, it's polished, and works beautifully, but people just dont' play it. Look at al lthe examples, Ryzom, SWG, EVE, none of them come close to a having WoW polish and design elegance.
the great thing about mass effect is how it combines the COMBAT with storyline.
I really hope but also really doubt bioware are going to do this with TOR. that kind of combat would be hard but amazing in a mmo, but feels like they are making world of starwarscraft with more story.
a boring/standard mmo with a good storyline is something I'll play for a while like a singleplayer RPG, but if bioware think they'll get my sub for it they are FOOLS.
My blog:
I started with UO/EQ when MMOs are still in its infancy. And now I play WOW. From what I am seeing in WOTLK, it would last me a good many more months (i have a life, can't play much every week) before I would exhaust the content even if I don't raid. (This includes getting badge epics, craft stuff, alts, and so on). I also enjoy AH, and some PUGs dungeons and battleground style PvP.
WOW has the best, most polished, most fun content. Some of the scripted quests are really heads and shoulders above everything else i have tried. Tabular Rasa, which i played for a month (thank go it is only $5) is pretty sad.
LOTR is pretty good (i played a week on it). I probably will play seriously when I am done with WOW . And i will come back whenever there is a major content patch.
New games on the horizon that I definitely need to play includes Diablo 3 (and it is probably as good as an MMO abate *smaller* in scope) and i need to finish Fallout 3 (ignoring it after WOTLK released).
To add some variation, there are a few FPS/TPS I also want to play/finish (Dead Space, Gear of War 2 at a min).
The OP probably didn't played planescape torment , BG, icewind dale ,the witcher EE?
Mass effect has a good mains story but unfortunately RPG-LITE because you don't have allot of decisions. The side quests are really bad done with most of them , rehash textures and quests which do not contribute to the overall game.
Overall, compared to the better RPG'S, mass effect is RPG-LITE.
The op should play the witcher btw. Miles better in my opinion then mass effect.
In my opinion, since black isle
went under, bioware went under. Last good game of bioware in my opinion was KOTOR. After that, they went to action games with stats and story elements.
-----------------------------------------------------------
the old days, the days of gold.
representer of euhporium, shade/amity , high member of the council.
played
UO,M59,EVE,L2,AC,GW,WOW,LOTRO,SWG pre cu/nge,COH/COV, VG,TR,L1, POTBS,Neocron 1 and 2, DAOC pre TOA and age of conan
playing: EVE ONLINE
Waiting for Earthrise, FE, bioware mmo, guild wars 2, DFO , mortal online , the chronicles of spellborn
I'm actually part way through Mass Effect at the moment. Initially it was kind of interesting but it gets very boring very quickly due to the fact that the game is more like an interactive movie than an actual game. The graphics are fantastic, the voice acting is perfect and everything looks pretty convincing.......and yet it fails to hold my interest due to the lack of interaction on the part of the player.
Everything is mapped out ahead of me and all I have to do is click on the oppropriate line of text to advance the dialogue or follow the linear path to the next cut scene or bog standard battle that always seems to play out in the same old way. Even visiting new planets has become tedious because I know in advance what its going to be like. I'm also finding the skills and abilities in Mass Effect to be extremely boring. I barely even bother using most of them.
The Witcher is indeed a lot more interesting than Mass Effect. It still tells the player a story but it allows a lot more freedom over where you choose to go.
Story telling is clearly not the way to go for mmos, especially when I have thousands of other people to play with.
Lol, well I guess we'll see about that when Bioware releases their MMO. Regardless, I just finished Mass Effect (1st time through) and I have to say I had more fun in the last week with this game than I've had in the last year with any MMO. I found it engaging, entertaining, and incredibly polished. If Bioware can bring these things to a MMO, I can hardly wait. It'll be an instant hit.
Its to much console port but you prolly play consoles so you love it offcorse it was not a bad game but its a dumb down version for true PC gamers.
Games played:AC1-Darktide'99-2000-AC2-Darktide/dawnsong2003-2005,Lineage2-2005-2006 and now Darkfall-2009.....
In between WoW few months AoC few months and some f2p also all very short few weeks.
But your assuming that story telling will equate to single player experiences. I'm banking on Bioware's ability to make it work in a multi player environment. If anyone can do it, this is the company to make it happen. To me, this is the next evolution in MMO questing. The quests we have today are repetative, boring, and pretty much meaningless. Imagine an online world where you are actually part of a story, recognized by NPCs for your actions -- good and bad -- and able to affect the world around you in different ways! That's where questing based MMOs need to be heading, and I'm hoping that KOTOR will take us in that direction.
I love the idea of affecting the world around you, but if everything is instanced and 10,000 other players are doing the exact same quest it kind of kill the immersion. Allowing players to create their own story through the choices they make is a step forward, but I believe creating storybook MMOs where everyone follows the same story is a HUGE step back.
Its to much console port but you prolly play consoles so you love it offcorse it was not a bad game but its a dumb down version for true PC gamers.
Not sure what ever gave you that idea, but no. I don't play consoles. My 37 year old fingers just don't work well on a xbox controller. I'm a keyboard and mouse man all the way.
I'm also a little confused as to what a "true PC gamer" is. I played Mass Effect on my PC (E6600, 4 gigs, 260GTX, Vista, 37" flat screen Dual Monitor setup), and I thought it was one of the best PC games I've ever played. If you are suggesting that there are other better games out there for the PC in the same genre, by all means, please share.
Anywho, my original point was and is that I have a lot of faith in Bioware. Their games seem pretty solid and engaging. The company is innovative and they seem to know what it takes to make a great game. They've already stated that TOR will revolve around story, and after playing Mass Effect, I'm excited to see what they come up with, because they told one hell of a story in that game and I enjoyed every minute of it.
I would agree that it would be a step back if everyone followed the same story. But then again, the majority of MMOs out today revolve around going through pretty much the same quests on alts, and all your fellow players are doing the exact same quests as well. It's kind of the same thing.
However, if Bioware does it right, they'll offer branching story lines where your actions and decisions take you in different directions from your fellow players. With each new action or decision, you branch off yet again and the story changes for you. Over the course of your career, you may branch off 1,000s of times and your story suddenly becomes very unique. Now, allow NPCs and factions to recognize your actions and choices and react to you accordingly, and it sounds like a very good thing and a huge step forward to me.
As an example, instead of go kill 10 boars and come back, you now have the option to ask why am I killing the 10 boars, maybe you don't want to do it, maybe you side with the boars and kill the quest giver. Who knows? Point is, you now have options that do not exist in most current MMOs. Exciting stuff IMO.
It may be a bad step, but it's not a step back. Because the MMO in its first days - or even its ancestor, the MUD - was never about storytelling, it was about free combat-heavy gameplay. Storytelling is a new trend in MMOs.
I'm curious to see how it will turn out. I'll admit the approach has not given the MMO much strength up to now, maybe partly because the storytelling itself has not been too involving, and maybe partly beause it's just hard to envelop players in engaging stories and still keep the massively multiplayer feeling there. I'm hoping Bioware can come up with some new way of tackling this - it's somewhat obvious a dominating main story arc as in single player RPGs won't do.
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.
I highlighted the important part here. CAN!!!!!
Not -MUST- but -CAN-. The so called single-player crowd mostly just wants to have the -option- and not be -FORCED- into grouping to accomplish anything.
That's why I say grouping should have incentives, but should never be mandatory.
Any MMORPG that requires grouping takes that percentage of the population that prefers MORE than grouping/raiding...like...
And ruins their fun.
I play MMORPGs for the larger worlds that is available in SP RPGs. But my idea of fun isn't wasting my life waiting on groups to form; dealing with rushers who (as the poster clearly illustrated) run through the quests so they can get the loot faster, not caring about the RPG aspect of the MMO; and rude people who literally roleplay evil.
If I need "socializing" that's what the IMs and XFire is for, otherwise play time is for exploring maps; finding out different ways to slaughter the enemy; solving riddles and puzzles; and slaying that impossible dragon yourself as a mark of personal achievement AND tenacity.
.:| Kevyne@Shandris - Armory |:. - When WoW was #1 - .:| I AM A HOLY PALADIN - Guild Theme |:.