I imagine too much imbalance and a whole lot of bitching in a system like this, leading to lots of unfun and griefing mechanics. People accomplishing what others can't because they easily exploited something and since its a part of the game its suddenly OK. Thats not going to fly mainstream and its going to take someone mainstream to do it right. As long as you have a playerbase willing to be experimented on, which is exactly what this would be, you're golden=) But give too much control to the player and the worst comes out. Look at Eve. Years of work and I call it work because thats what playing Eve basically is, flushed down the drain. No going back. No recovery. Accomplishments gone in a day, because of the players. You may THINK that makes the game better. No. it just doesn't make it a game anymore. It becomes a simulation and I understand some people want that. Most don't. They don't see their games as simulations. They see them as breaks from the biggest simulation we have, life. Most don't want to step out of the daily grind and walk into another even WORSE one.
Spot on.
I'd image that dynamic content is something that truly changes the state of the game. Current gameworlds are stuck in time and never change. Only game I've seen this is GW where in a quest you killed all the dwarves roaming an area. After the completion of that quest, there weren't any dwarves there! It's a small step, but it's still a step forward. I know some people hate instances but this is how it's done. I want to see the world change because of my actions. If it means more instances I say it's worth it.
Another choice would be using GMs as Elikal previously suggested. That would be the ultimate thing. Far better than any smart AI randomized area or quest with multiple endings. Definately something worth our subs.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I imagine too much imbalance and a whole lot of bitching in a system like this, leading to lots of unfun and griefing mechanics. People accomplishing what others can't because they easily exploited something and since its a part of the game its suddenly OK. Thats not going to fly mainstream and its going to take someone mainstream to do it right. As long as you have a playerbase willing to be experimented on, which is exactly what this would be, you're golden=) But give too much control to the player and the worst comes out. Look at Eve. Years of work and I call it work because thats what playing Eve basically is, flushed down the drain. No going back. No recovery. Accomplishments gone in a day, because of the players. You may THINK that makes the game better. No. it just doesn't make it a game anymore. It becomes a simulation and I understand some people want that. Most don't. They don't see their games as simulations. They see them as breaks from the biggest simulation we have, life. Most don't want to step out of the daily grind and walk into another even WORSE one.
Spot on.
I'd image that dynamic content is something that truly changes the state of the game. Current gameworlds are stuck in time and never change. Only game I've seen this is GW where in a quest you killed all the dwarves roaming an area. After the completion of that quest, there weren't any dwarves there! It's a small step, but it's still a step forward. I know some people hate instances but this is how it's done. I want to see the world change because of my actions. If it means more instances I say it's worth it.
Another choice would be using GMs as Elikal previously suggested. That would be the ultimate thing. Far better than any smart AI randomized area or quest with multiple endings. Definately something worth our subs.
I agree. Dynamic means the game world changes. And I don't mean changes like WoW's phasing, where the change is just an illusion, since the change is not apparent to all players.
Real change means it affects all players, and all players see the same thing.
I think cyclical change would be a step in the right direction.
Right now, you save the princess. She's not really saved, because the quest is still there fro someone else to save the princess.
WoW ads Phasing. You save the princess, and she's saved for YOU, as an illusion, but for ME she still needs saving .
Cyclical quests would work like this:
I kidnap the Princess. I get xp and rewards for that. The state of the quest is now "Princess kidnapped". No one else can kidnap the Princess, because she is already truly kidnapped for all players in the world to see.
Now, there is an opposite quest: "Save the Princess" . if you do that the Princess is truly saved, for all in the world to see, and no one can save the Princess again, until she is kidnapped.
Now, not EVERY quest would need to be dynamic like this, but if you put a LOT of quests like this in the game, I think it would be fun.
What in the hell is the point of an mmo if it has no grouping at all? Co-op? Are you serious? I can't think of a game where a co-op mode was implemented outside of a single player game? Bah, WoW, if that shit never got big we wouldn't have players want single player mmos.
More instances means less impact on the world, just the bit I'm stood in, and assuming I want to meet everyone else I'm going to need to leave this instance. As mentioned you can have apparent changes where the world tells me things have changed but only 'cos I've done that quest... but again thats not the same world as everyone else. Cyclic quests is closer, now at least something has genuinly changed for everyone to see, but we'd be queing up at the princesses window waiting for her to be rescued so we could kidnap her again. Or jumping the latest kidnapper as they make off with her (again).
Its a genuine problem, the solution for me is a larger world with player actions providing the quests for other players, like the princess kidnapping, except I just decided to do it rather than it being an optional quest that everyone knows about (thanks to the games wiki). Of course this means the game must have the provision for me to kidnapp folk- anyfolk. And for the families of these folk to respond in a sensible manner. Its a biggy.
An obvious solution is to be rid of NPCs of significance and instead have the player characters be the ones we kidnap for cash (or a laugh), and have thier allies and/or alts come for them- or whatever they decide to do. This means a character must be persistant and can also be lost (else you'll easy find yourself).
In fact the more odd situations we imagine we could put a character in, and dream up all the systems we'd need to add or even remove, then the more open the players will be. Indeed I've sat around doing this for many years now and its basicaly the real-world sim as mentioned earlier... and as highlighted earlier 'it will definitely make an impressive piece of technology, but maybe not a GAME'.
Let me start by saying that your post is amazing. Now, I'll say my piece.
There are two answers, and I love both (or would if they were done with success).
You mentioned the first answer: Dynamic Content. But this wouldn't mean a dynamic world, therefore everyone has the same opportunities. It's brilliant, but (when) will we see it? I've heard nothing of this other than your post (so props for being original).
The second answer is being worked on by many and is probably much nearer: Dynamic world and true sandbox gameplay. A world where everything is controlled by the players, where the only limit is imagination and skill (or so the devs/fanboys/etc. say...time will tell).
Both ideas look great, but ideas are only ideas, and are yet to be actually carried out in full. Your idea is great, but I'm not getting my hopes up. For the time being, I'll just keep playing mediocre mainstream MMOs while waiting for Mortal Online to possibly save the world, because I have no faith in Darkfall. That being said, it would be awesome if your idea was already being used by a company for the basis of their next game and we didn't know about it yet (or I'm just making an ass of myself by being misinformed) and was within ohh...say a year and a half from projected release.
The problem with a sandbox is that development is programmer heavy. The art side of it is rather simple and can be done with only 5 artists. There are alot more artists/designers then programmers trying to get into the game industry considering a programmer gets paid better elsewhere.
Totally agree, we can play Oblivion or Witcher for darn good solo play. Why play a MMO unless you want to group up, want to take part in a living community of like minded players?
More options doesn't mean single player, you can choose to take down the big boss by various means, and this can include a great many of you... either directly assaulting their fortess, or more likely split into a few teams each with a task. By working together you can ensure the enemy army is else where and their defences are down and their guards are drugged and you have the only weapon that can kill them. How you do all this, if indeed you decide to- is up to you, and if you fail any bits then you decide to continue or not... not the game system. You never know, you might get lucky.
Why is there no RPG (read: STORY) element in any of today's games?
We need a rpg mmorpg, agreed. Mmorpg's only art is making players grind as long as they can.
The Old Republic will be just that. It's basically a massive multiplayer version of KOTOR. I just hope it won't be to solo friendly, which will ruin the whole point of it being massive multiplayer, IMO.
I would vote NO for automated Dynamic content generation being the only solution. However, I believe Player/Dev-Creation (w/ powerful-yet-ez-to-use tools) coupled with Automated Content Creation is a very strong contender.
First off, the game I propose would NOT appeal to the masses. Second, I'm not talking bout a Second Life clone. What I propose is a virtual world that has the framework in place to support a Persistent World based on a expandable set of Fantasy Lore/Rules. A framework that allows Devs/Players to create and share assets, content, and quest. A framework opened to Player created Races, Classes, Skills, Stories. IMHO, Player ingenuity is totally under-estimated.
I don't understand why people want more solo options and to limit grouping? Its a danm MMO. Bah, I dislike that kind of thinking.
You clear do not understand the bulk of the players. Solo options = no waiting = no depending on other people to have fun.
People like to show off their gear to others, like to chat when playing, like to have a large auction house. Those are quite enough to warrant a MMO.
And it is symantics anyway. If a lot of people find if fun to solo when on a chat channel, who are you to say that shouldn't be supported?
I agree. While grouping is fun it must NOT be enforced!
-During some times of the day it would be impossible to advance with the game.
-Friends cannot be forced the match timetables to get on with the game.
-Do not forget that grouping with random dudes is too often a mistake where some players might be a burden to the whole group. Who would want play with them?
-Fragmented population in the server wheter it is because of level or area makes grouping difficult.
Majority like to play alone sometimes. You'd lose a lot of paying customers. Soloable content is what players want.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
I don't understand why people want more solo options and to limit grouping? Its a danm MMO. Bah, I dislike that kind of thinking.
You clear do not understand the bulk of the players. Solo options = no waiting = no depending on other people to have fun.
People like to show off their gear to others, like to chat when playing, like to have a large auction house. Those are quite enough to warrant a MMO.
And it is symantics anyway. If a lot of people find if fun to solo when on a chat channel, who are you to say that shouldn't be supported?
From the word usuage here "auction house" I assume you're a wow player? I do clearly understand the bulk of players. I understand what soloing means thank you. I think the majority of the game should have some kind of group/community content. I think grouping should come first. If you can't find a group, its ok to solo. And that is not to stop the solo players to just solo all the time. Again I state that you're a wow player because people like to show off gear. Yes perhaps, but thats not what mmos are all about, ever since wow became mainstream people believe this is the best way. And it's wrong. You are assuming way to much my friend. I believe solo should be supported to the full. But its an mmo, massively multiplayer online. That means you play with other people. And that can go along way.
Nice tread. I disagree with dynamic content for npcs as a good / fun solution. Good ai should be a must, but sadly i dont think it would be an popular idea with the gaming companies.
If i could design a game i wouldnt care so much about making it popular with a huge audience. There are other ways of making profits once theres a loyal player base. The main reason games become flawed is real world money, gaming companies seem to copy each other rather than making original content becouse its safer to go with something allready tested. Making the argument that people dont want an "reality" becouse thats what they live every day, is both true and false i guess. The real world dont give people the freedom to express themselves and do crazy things (blow things up, massacres, build a castle..).
I guess the reason it would intimmidate alot of people is that theyre used to rules and tasks someone else made for them. I call those people "sheep". Its ironic that anyone with original ideas will be put down, until the day they succseed / make it profitable, then everyone cheers and wanna steal theyre idea. If someone made a verry free game i bet the initial reaction would be alot of complaints, then as the smarter players got into the game, alot of dumber people would follow and just mimic them.
If i could make a game i would have these things:
- Full pvp everywhere exept newb spawn nodes / verry small area. - Friendly fire allways on. - Verry few npcs exept the most basic vendors and guards, and mobs. - An undeveloped world for anyone to create allmost any structure. - Physics. Fall damage, movable objects, pickup and trow..etc. - Logical / realistic health, armor, weapon damage, etc. For instance if somone shoot an unarmored person in the head, they die. - Megalomania over limitation. "We cant have this becouse its so powerful". Yes you can, just add ways to counter it (weapon vs armor etc). - Death holds consequences, you ether loose skills, crawl back up from hell, get a ressurection.. - Fully lootable corpses, even players. - What you see is what you get, whenever a pc/npc is killed hes corpse contain the stuff he had(no more 1 item loots). - Location based banks, no more same bank space in several cities. - Player trade, no auction houses, no player owned npc shops. - No alignment. Good and evil depends on the eye that see. - An engine that regulate the "lag" and eliminate all cheats / mods accociated with it. - 180 degree limited 1st person view, forced by the server(i really hate sneaking up on somone to have them detect me at the last second). - Limited inventory / carry ability. Walking around with 1000 healing potions and near unlimited weaponry and ammo is stupid. - Characters need 8 hours rest each day, or suffer increasing penalties. This will be good for the gamers and it will likely remove alot of bots (iam sure alot will think its a bad idea). - No soulbound gear. - No "back to town" or similar items for newbs. - Destroyable equips, if somone trows a pound of c4 in youre face..the equips should be destroyed instead of having a "0/100 durability". - No classes, anyone can learn any skill / ability. - Combat system that allows for 1 hit kills and lasting injury that must be healed or "nano-botted" or whatever.
Theres prolly more i cant think of right now, some things might be unthinkable for alot of people and some technicaly impossible. Id love a game like this, and alot of others i know would to. Doubt anyone would take the chance of making it tho
"I'd just like to see more games that focus on the world, and giving the people in it more of a role, im tired of these constant single player games that you can walk around with millions of people."
I agree with the sentiments of Techlord, purely automated content would imho be a mistake.
As the the other point that's flying around... why do we seem to have a problem with solo play?
Of course its an MMO and without other players it will be a barren and I would say pointless environment (especially as I'm a strong advocate for player generated content), but I dont equate MMO with a game system that penalises against solo play. If someone has the wrong attitude to group play then they'll be alone, and if that puts them off the game then so be it, but if someone simply choses to spend part or dare I say even all their time alone 'in game', then its their time... I dont see how its going to spoil my day.
That said...everyone is an individual and so the game must cater for each of us; yet no man is an island, and anyone solo playing will soon realise just how true that is, there will be times that they need others and if that means comming into town to meet some crafters then we'll have that, if it means seeking help for dealing with a major foe, then we'll have that. I dont see the need to measure one against the other.
Have I missed something? Is there a reason we must place one play style above another??
Someone should do an MMO that is kind of a mix of Warcraft 3 and Everquest. In Warcraft 3 you (the player) can create your own maps and quests, some have already made rpgs to play with others. Now take that and expand it into the MMO world. Instead of only having the maximum of 12 players like Warcraft 3 has, make the limit 1000 players. You could have guilds add onto the game map to build thier own castle and guild raids that anyone can do. Create your own map with your house on it. Create a maze and have people try to run it and live. I think you get the picture hehe. Make the MMO 50/50 Player created and Dev created.
I honestly dont know if other Devs could pull off Automated Dynamic content generation without it eventually de-evolving into the monotonous Quest Task system that we see common in todays MMOs. To date, there is no AI that can match creative power of human brain. So until that day comes, trully dynamic content output will require human input.
Now, I'm not advocating that the game world be 100% player created or driven. I see protests against PVE `Solo-friendly` playing features. Removing these features will NOT make the game world more dynamic. In fact, I believe that a more robust AI could improve the dynamics of the content. An all player driven world sounds good in theory, but, whos signing up for roles as the tavern bartender and waitress?
I conclude my thoughts on this subject with: The ability to add Dynamic Content exists in most MMOS via the Chatbox.
... Now, I'm not advocating that the game world be 100% player created or driven. I see protests against PVE `Solo-friendly` playing features. Removing these features will NOT make the game world more dynamic. In fact, I believe that a more robust AI could improve the dynamics of the content. An all player driven world sounds good in theory, but, whos signing up for roles as the tavern bartender and waitress? ...
I think I'm happy to have an Alt who owns a bar, I'd like the cash they can generate, he'd be very generous however and donate all his profits to my 'adventurer' character. Perhaps I could own the bar but leave it to my NPC bar manager while I'm off adventuring, of course I wouldn't expect much from him, he's only an NPC.
First off, I would like to say that I think this particular thread has been one of the most enjoyable threads to read in a LONG time. I am so blown away by the great ideas and suggestions here that I know I could never fit all of the content I would want to say here.
That said, I think that Dynamic content is definitely the key to the next generation of MMO's. The one thing that hasn't been talked about, however, is what if the Dynamic content you are wanting to experience is given in the form of you actually playing against another real player. For example, what if the "pirate" you are looking to collect the bounty on is in fact another player instead of a NPC. Of course, you would still have to have some NPC's in the game, but many "missions" would be set up where you are against another player or players, possibly with you doing it solo or even with a group, in order to complete the task at hand.
Another change to depart from the classic MMO would be not adventuring to just get XP and level, but the reward itself is the money gained (or reputation changed, military objective completed or political favor granted) for completed the "mission". Therefore, if you are a bounty hunter, you may look for "missions" at the local spaceport or planetary bar and you would talk to other Players who need you to help them. An example might be one where a Player had something valuable stolen from him by another player, who pickpocketed him on his last trip to Planet X, and he is offering a bounty for someone to retrieve his item.
This system would also be enhanced by implementing most all of the ideas Regen stated in his post, and incorporating them with the ideas from Vexam, Ianonmmorpg, chrswlf, Ihmotepp, and Elikal. So many great ideas are in all of the these posts that I could only hope it would inspire a gaming company to make a 4th generation MMO that is original. I think that a true 4th generation MMO would have to allow playability for soloist, small groups, and large guilds in order to give the variability needed.
One other thought I had would be to make a game that gives different types of playing experiences depending on what you want to do. For example, if you wanna do mostly space combat you would be playing the "space combat" part of the game where you fly your ship using a "twitch" combat system or one like Eve. Others may fancy being a merchant on a planet trying to make a living using a 1st or 3rd person view to move their character around the planet looking for others to make deals with or checking on his local warehouse. Others might be a Thief type who makes his living off of pickpocketing or B&E, interacting on the same interface as the merchant, but with more of an Assassins Creed feel to it. Now, I know that it would make it the biggest game ever to have all of these features, but so many games incorporate ideas close to that, like SWG, but fall short on graphics, original setting, or UI.
So, to recap what I am saying, I think you can make a game with dynamic content in it as long as you allow the players to interact with eachother more closely than they do now. There is no leveling or XP gained, all items are made by the players and can be destroyed (therefore keeping a market for replacements), and most missions are ones that involve other players like in the following examples:
- A player on Planet X wants to get a higher level cabinet position in the government so he hires another player to assassinate his rival.
- 20 Players who each have their own ships decide to get together to form a "guild" of pirates who terrorize the local star system to steal supplies, money and items in order to pay for upgrading their ships and to show off their piloting skills.
- A government official (NPC) from Planet X offers a reward to a player to capture or kill another player who is wanted from crimes committed on Planet X.
- A player named John is hired to kidnap the Princess of Planet Y, and keep her alive, so that a diplomat player from Planet X can force the King of Planet Y to do him a political favor. John is a skilled kidnapper and thief, but doesn't own a ship or pilot very well, so he hires another player named Bob, who is a local pilot known for not asking questions, to ferry him to Planet Y and then off to a secret location.
These are just some thoughts, and I took liberty with the pricess example from Ihmotepp, but examples like that would give players unique business opportunities that affect the in-game experience for all to see and be fullfilled by those who can pull it off. If someone "fails" to accomplish a mission, they player who gave it can either stick with them for another try or choose to offer the mission to another player.
Finally, I really think that the RPG of MMORPG's out there are almost all lost in translation. So many people are concerned with the MMO part of it and just sit around getting epic gear like in WoW. Why can't a game be like playing Oblivion, EVE, DDO, EQ2 and AoC all rolled into one.
Another thing I would like to mention is that the system described in my previous post could easily be adapted from a Sci-fi space genre to a Pirate genre or even Fantasy (ie, substitute space ships with sailing ships, planets with island cities, and starbases with pirate hangouts and such). If a company put the money into developing a new system and engine to work on, it could use it for all 3 genres and beyond. The key is keeping the true Player vs Player content mixed with the ability of solo play or to gain economies of scale as a group.
Comments
Spot on.
I'd image that dynamic content is something that truly changes the state of the game. Current gameworlds are stuck in time and never change. Only game I've seen this is GW where in a quest you killed all the dwarves roaming an area. After the completion of that quest, there weren't any dwarves there! It's a small step, but it's still a step forward. I know some people hate instances but this is how it's done. I want to see the world change because of my actions. If it means more instances I say it's worth it.
Another choice would be using GMs as Elikal previously suggested. That would be the ultimate thing. Far better than any smart AI randomized area or quest with multiple endings. Definately something worth our subs.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Spot on.
I'd image that dynamic content is something that truly changes the state of the game. Current gameworlds are stuck in time and never change. Only game I've seen this is GW where in a quest you killed all the dwarves roaming an area. After the completion of that quest, there weren't any dwarves there! It's a small step, but it's still a step forward. I know some people hate instances but this is how it's done. I want to see the world change because of my actions. If it means more instances I say it's worth it.
Another choice would be using GMs as Elikal previously suggested. That would be the ultimate thing. Far better than any smart AI randomized area or quest with multiple endings. Definately something worth our subs.
I agree. Dynamic means the game world changes. And I don't mean changes like WoW's phasing, where the change is just an illusion, since the change is not apparent to all players.
Real change means it affects all players, and all players see the same thing.
I think cyclical change would be a step in the right direction.
Right now, you save the princess. She's not really saved, because the quest is still there fro someone else to save the princess.
WoW ads Phasing. You save the princess, and she's saved for YOU, as an illusion, but for ME she still needs saving .
Cyclical quests would work like this:
I kidnap the Princess. I get xp and rewards for that. The state of the quest is now "Princess kidnapped". No one else can kidnap the Princess, because she is already truly kidnapped for all players in the world to see.
Now, there is an opposite quest: "Save the Princess" . if you do that the Princess is truly saved, for all in the world to see, and no one can save the Princess again, until she is kidnapped.
Now, not EVERY quest would need to be dynamic like this, but if you put a LOT of quests like this in the game, I think it would be fun.
We need a rpg mmorpg, agreed. Mmorpg's only art is making players grind as long as they can.
What in the hell is the point of an mmo if it has no grouping at all? Co-op? Are you serious? I can't think of a game where a co-op mode was implemented outside of a single player game? Bah, WoW, if that shit never got big we wouldn't have players want single player mmos.
More instances means less impact on the world, just the bit I'm stood in, and assuming I want to meet everyone else I'm going to need to leave this instance. As mentioned you can have apparent changes where the world tells me things have changed but only 'cos I've done that quest... but again thats not the same world as everyone else. Cyclic quests is closer, now at least something has genuinly changed for everyone to see, but we'd be queing up at the princesses window waiting for her to be rescued so we could kidnap her again. Or jumping the latest kidnapper as they make off with her (again).
Its a genuine problem, the solution for me is a larger world with player actions providing the quests for other players, like the princess kidnapping, except I just decided to do it rather than it being an optional quest that everyone knows about (thanks to the games wiki). Of course this means the game must have the provision for me to kidnapp folk- anyfolk. And for the families of these folk to respond in a sensible manner. Its a biggy.
An obvious solution is to be rid of NPCs of significance and instead have the player characters be the ones we kidnap for cash (or a laugh), and have thier allies and/or alts come for them- or whatever they decide to do. This means a character must be persistant and can also be lost (else you'll easy find yourself).
In fact the more odd situations we imagine we could put a character in, and dream up all the systems we'd need to add or even remove, then the more open the players will be. Indeed I've sat around doing this for many years now and its basicaly the real-world sim as mentioned earlier... and as highlighted earlier 'it will definitely make an impressive piece of technology, but maybe not a GAME'.
Let me start by saying that your post is amazing. Now, I'll say my piece.
There are two answers, and I love both (or would if they were done with success).
You mentioned the first answer: Dynamic Content. But this wouldn't mean a dynamic world, therefore everyone has the same opportunities. It's brilliant, but (when) will we see it? I've heard nothing of this other than your post (so props for being original).
The second answer is being worked on by many and is probably much nearer: Dynamic world and true sandbox gameplay. A world where everything is controlled by the players, where the only limit is imagination and skill (or so the devs/fanboys/etc. say...time will tell).
Both ideas look great, but ideas are only ideas, and are yet to be actually carried out in full. Your idea is great, but I'm not getting my hopes up. For the time being, I'll just keep playing mediocre mainstream MMOs while waiting for Mortal Online to possibly save the world, because I have no faith in Darkfall. That being said, it would be awesome if your idea was already being used by a company for the basis of their next game and we didn't know about it yet (or I'm just making an ass of myself by being misinformed) and was within ohh...say a year and a half from projected release.
The problem with a sandbox is that development is programmer heavy. The art side of it is rather simple and can be done with only 5 artists. There are alot more artists/designers then programmers trying to get into the game industry considering a programmer gets paid better elsewhere.
I don't understand why people want more solo options and to limit grouping? Its a danm MMO. Bah, I dislike that kind of thinking.
Agreed. Too much solo content ruins the whole idea of multi-player, imo.
Totally agree, we can play Oblivion or Witcher for darn good solo play. Why play a MMO unless you want to group up, want to take part in a living community of like minded players?
More options doesn't mean single player, you can choose to take down the big boss by various means, and this can include a great many of you... either directly assaulting their fortess, or more likely split into a few teams each with a task. By working together you can ensure the enemy army is else where and their defences are down and their guards are drugged and you have the only weapon that can kill them. How you do all this, if indeed you decide to- is up to you, and if you fail any bits then you decide to continue or not... not the game system. You never know, you might get lucky.
Like I said, not single player.
Sounds like you need to get this on your blog
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs.cfm?&val=1
Good stuff
You clear do not understand the bulk of the players. Solo options = no waiting = no depending on other people to have fun.
People like to show off their gear to others, like to chat when playing, like to have a large auction house. Those are quite enough to warrant a MMO.
And it is symantics anyway. If a lot of people find if fun to solo when on a chat channel, who are you to say that shouldn't be supported?
We need a rpg mmorpg, agreed. Mmorpg's only art is making players grind as long as they can.
The Old Republic will be just that. It's basically a massive multiplayer version of KOTOR. I just hope it won't be to solo friendly, which will ruin the whole point of it being massive multiplayer, IMO.
I would vote NO for automated Dynamic content generation being the only solution. However, I believe Player/Dev-Creation (w/ powerful-yet-ez-to-use tools) coupled with Automated Content Creation is a very strong contender.
First off, the game I propose would NOT appeal to the masses. Second, I'm not talking bout a Second Life clone. What I propose is a virtual world that has the framework in place to support a Persistent World based on a expandable set of Fantasy Lore/Rules. A framework that allows Devs/Players to create and share assets, content, and quest. A framework opened to Player created Races, Classes, Skills, Stories. IMHO, Player ingenuity is totally under-estimated.
You clear do not understand the bulk of the players. Solo options = no waiting = no depending on other people to have fun.
People like to show off their gear to others, like to chat when playing, like to have a large auction house. Those are quite enough to warrant a MMO.
And it is symantics anyway. If a lot of people find if fun to solo when on a chat channel, who are you to say that shouldn't be supported?
I agree. While grouping is fun it must NOT be enforced!
-During some times of the day it would be impossible to advance with the game.
-Friends cannot be forced the match timetables to get on with the game.
-Do not forget that grouping with random dudes is too often a mistake where some players might be a burden to the whole group. Who would want play with them?
-Fragmented population in the server wheter it is because of level or area makes grouping difficult.
Majority like to play alone sometimes. You'd lose a lot of paying customers. Soloable content is what players want.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
You clear do not understand the bulk of the players. Solo options = no waiting = no depending on other people to have fun.
People like to show off their gear to others, like to chat when playing, like to have a large auction house. Those are quite enough to warrant a MMO.
And it is symantics anyway. If a lot of people find if fun to solo when on a chat channel, who are you to say that shouldn't be supported?
From the word usuage here "auction house" I assume you're a wow player? I do clearly understand the bulk of players. I understand what soloing means thank you. I think the majority of the game should have some kind of group/community content. I think grouping should come first. If you can't find a group, its ok to solo. And that is not to stop the solo players to just solo all the time. Again I state that you're a wow player because people like to show off gear. Yes perhaps, but thats not what mmos are all about, ever since wow became mainstream people believe this is the best way. And it's wrong. You are assuming way to much my friend. I believe solo should be supported to the full. But its an mmo, massively multiplayer online. That means you play with other people. And that can go along way.
Nice tread.
I disagree with dynamic content for npcs as a good / fun solution. Good ai should be a must, but sadly i dont think it would be an popular idea with the gaming companies.
If i could design a game i wouldnt care so much about making it popular with a huge audience. There are other ways of making profits once theres a loyal player base. The main reason games become flawed is real world money, gaming companies seem to copy each other rather than making original content becouse its safer to go with something allready tested. Making the argument that people dont want an "reality" becouse thats what they live every day, is both true and false i guess. The real world dont give people the freedom to express themselves and do crazy things (blow things up, massacres, build a castle..).
I guess the reason it would intimmidate alot of people is that theyre used to rules and tasks someone else made for them. I call those people "sheep". Its ironic that anyone with original ideas will be put down, until the day they succseed / make it profitable, then everyone cheers and wanna steal theyre idea.
If someone made a verry free game i bet the initial reaction would be alot of complaints, then as the smarter players got into the game, alot of dumber people would follow and just mimic them.
If i could make a game i would have these things:
- Full pvp everywhere exept newb spawn nodes / verry small area.
- Friendly fire allways on.
- Verry few npcs exept the most basic vendors and guards, and mobs.
- An undeveloped world for anyone to create allmost any structure.
- Physics. Fall damage, movable objects, pickup and trow..etc.
- Logical / realistic health, armor, weapon damage, etc.
For instance if somone shoot an unarmored person in the head, they die.
- Megalomania over limitation. "We cant have this becouse its so powerful".
Yes you can, just add ways to counter it (weapon vs armor etc).
- Death holds consequences, you ether loose skills, crawl back up from
hell, get a ressurection..
- Fully lootable corpses, even players.
- What you see is what you get, whenever a pc/npc is killed hes corpse
contain the stuff he had(no more 1 item loots).
- Location based banks, no more same bank space in several cities.
- Player trade, no auction houses, no player owned npc shops.
- No alignment. Good and evil depends on the eye that see.
- An engine that regulate the "lag" and eliminate all cheats / mods
accociated with it.
- 180 degree limited 1st person view, forced by the server(i really hate
sneaking up on somone to have them detect me at the last second).
- Limited inventory / carry ability. Walking around with 1000 healing
potions and near unlimited weaponry and ammo is stupid.
- Characters need 8 hours rest each day, or suffer increasing penalties.
This will be good for the gamers and it will likely remove alot of
bots (iam sure alot will think its a bad idea).
- No soulbound gear.
- No "back to town" or similar items for newbs.
- Destroyable equips, if somone trows a pound of c4 in youre face..the
equips should be destroyed instead of having a "0/100 durability".
- No classes, anyone can learn any skill / ability.
- Combat system that allows for 1 hit kills and lasting injury that must
be healed or "nano-botted" or whatever.
Theres prolly more i cant think of right now, some things might be unthinkable for alot of people and some technicaly impossible.
Id love a game like this, and alot of others i know would to.
Doubt anyone would take the chance of making it tho
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/261448/page/5
"I'd just like to see more games that focus on the world, and giving the people in it more of a role, im tired of these constant single player games that you can walk around with millions of people."
- Parsalin
I agree with the sentiments of Techlord, purely automated content would imho be a mistake.
As the the other point that's flying around... why do we seem to have a problem with solo play?
Of course its an MMO and without other players it will be a barren and I would say pointless environment (especially as I'm a strong advocate for player generated content), but I dont equate MMO with a game system that penalises against solo play. If someone has the wrong attitude to group play then they'll be alone, and if that puts them off the game then so be it, but if someone simply choses to spend part or dare I say even all their time alone 'in game', then its their time... I dont see how its going to spoil my day.
That said...everyone is an individual and so the game must cater for each of us; yet no man is an island, and anyone solo playing will soon realise just how true that is, there will be times that they need others and if that means comming into town to meet some crafters then we'll have that, if it means seeking help for dealing with a major foe, then we'll have that. I dont see the need to measure one against the other.
Have I missed something? Is there a reason we must place one play style above another??
I think I've nodded to pretty much everything you wrote... wish I could finish making it before I die.
Someone should do an MMO that is kind of a mix of Warcraft 3 and Everquest. In Warcraft 3 you (the player) can create your own maps and quests, some have already made rpgs to play with others. Now take that and expand it into the MMO world. Instead of only having the maximum of 12 players like Warcraft 3 has, make the limit 1000 players. You could have guilds add onto the game map to build thier own castle and guild raids that anyone can do. Create your own map with your house on it. Create a maze and have people try to run it and live. I think you get the picture hehe. Make the MMO 50/50 Player created and Dev created.
I honestly dont know if other Devs could pull off Automated Dynamic content generation without it eventually de-evolving into the monotonous Quest Task system that we see common in todays MMOs. To date, there is no AI that can match creative power of human brain. So until that day comes, trully dynamic content output will require human input.
Now, I'm not advocating that the game world be 100% player created or driven. I see protests against PVE `Solo-friendly` playing features. Removing these features will NOT make the game world more dynamic. In fact, I believe that a more robust AI could improve the dynamics of the content. An all player driven world sounds good in theory, but, whos signing up for roles as the tavern bartender and waitress?
I conclude my thoughts on this subject with: The ability to add Dynamic Content exists in most MMOS via the Chatbox.
I think I'm happy to have an Alt who owns a bar, I'd like the cash they can generate, he'd be very generous however and donate all his profits to my 'adventurer' character. Perhaps I could own the bar but leave it to my NPC bar manager while I'm off adventuring, of course I wouldn't expect much from him, he's only an NPC.
First off, I would like to say that I think this particular thread has been one of the most enjoyable threads to read in a LONG time. I am so blown away by the great ideas and suggestions here that I know I could never fit all of the content I would want to say here.
That said, I think that Dynamic content is definitely the key to the next generation of MMO's. The one thing that hasn't been talked about, however, is what if the Dynamic content you are wanting to experience is given in the form of you actually playing against another real player. For example, what if the "pirate" you are looking to collect the bounty on is in fact another player instead of a NPC. Of course, you would still have to have some NPC's in the game, but many "missions" would be set up where you are against another player or players, possibly with you doing it solo or even with a group, in order to complete the task at hand.
Another change to depart from the classic MMO would be not adventuring to just get XP and level, but the reward itself is the money gained (or reputation changed, military objective completed or political favor granted) for completed the "mission". Therefore, if you are a bounty hunter, you may look for "missions" at the local spaceport or planetary bar and you would talk to other Players who need you to help them. An example might be one where a Player had something valuable stolen from him by another player, who pickpocketed him on his last trip to Planet X, and he is offering a bounty for someone to retrieve his item.
This system would also be enhanced by implementing most all of the ideas Regen stated in his post, and incorporating them with the ideas from Vexam, Ianonmmorpg, chrswlf, Ihmotepp, and Elikal. So many great ideas are in all of the these posts that I could only hope it would inspire a gaming company to make a 4th generation MMO that is original. I think that a true 4th generation MMO would have to allow playability for soloist, small groups, and large guilds in order to give the variability needed.
One other thought I had would be to make a game that gives different types of playing experiences depending on what you want to do. For example, if you wanna do mostly space combat you would be playing the "space combat" part of the game where you fly your ship using a "twitch" combat system or one like Eve. Others may fancy being a merchant on a planet trying to make a living using a 1st or 3rd person view to move their character around the planet looking for others to make deals with or checking on his local warehouse. Others might be a Thief type who makes his living off of pickpocketing or B&E, interacting on the same interface as the merchant, but with more of an Assassins Creed feel to it. Now, I know that it would make it the biggest game ever to have all of these features, but so many games incorporate ideas close to that, like SWG, but fall short on graphics, original setting, or UI.
So, to recap what I am saying, I think you can make a game with dynamic content in it as long as you allow the players to interact with eachother more closely than they do now. There is no leveling or XP gained, all items are made by the players and can be destroyed (therefore keeping a market for replacements), and most missions are ones that involve other players like in the following examples:
- A player on Planet X wants to get a higher level cabinet position in the government so he hires another player to assassinate his rival.
- 20 Players who each have their own ships decide to get together to form a "guild" of pirates who terrorize the local star system to steal supplies, money and items in order to pay for upgrading their ships and to show off their piloting skills.
- A government official (NPC) from Planet X offers a reward to a player to capture or kill another player who is wanted from crimes committed on Planet X.
- A player named John is hired to kidnap the Princess of Planet Y, and keep her alive, so that a diplomat player from Planet X can force the King of Planet Y to do him a political favor. John is a skilled kidnapper and thief, but doesn't own a ship or pilot very well, so he hires another player named Bob, who is a local pilot known for not asking questions, to ferry him to Planet Y and then off to a secret location.
These are just some thoughts, and I took liberty with the pricess example from Ihmotepp, but examples like that would give players unique business opportunities that affect the in-game experience for all to see and be fullfilled by those who can pull it off. If someone "fails" to accomplish a mission, they player who gave it can either stick with them for another try or choose to offer the mission to another player.
Finally, I really think that the RPG of MMORPG's out there are almost all lost in translation. So many people are concerned with the MMO part of it and just sit around getting epic gear like in WoW. Why can't a game be like playing Oblivion, EVE, DDO, EQ2 and AoC all rolled into one.
SORRY POST IS SO LONG.
Another thing I would like to mention is that the system described in my previous post could easily be adapted from a Sci-fi space genre to a Pirate genre or even Fantasy (ie, substitute space ships with sailing ships, planets with island cities, and starbases with pirate hangouts and such). If a company put the money into developing a new system and engine to work on, it could use it for all 3 genres and beyond. The key is keeping the true Player vs Player content mixed with the ability of solo play or to gain economies of scale as a group.