Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What is more important, the world or your character?
Ihmotepp
Member Posts: 14,495
What do you want to have an affect on? What's more important to you, the world, or your character?
I'm asking this question to gage your penchant for one or the other.
Let's say you have to choose between two games. One game has a skill system. You have a bazillion skills to choose from. There are no caps on any skills, and no restrictions on any skills. So you can build whatever character you want with no limits at all. However, the game is a standard themepark, like WoW. You will mostly grind quests, and collect gear as you gain skills. You have ZERO affect on the world. You save the princess, she still asks to be saved by the next player, and the next thousand players. but who cares, you're on to the next area of the game to do the next quest, to kill the next mob, to collect the next gear, to get more skills.
The next game has a class and level system, with a level cap. Level 100 is max level. you can be one of say 5 classes, and each class has a few specializations you can choose from. However, in this game you CAN affect the game world. you can take over territory. You can build a city, and destroy a city. You can build a bridge or destroy it. YOu can build giant monuments that open up new dungeons, or create new never before seen gear. There are quests taht are not static. You save the Princess, and she is actually saved. Unless someone kidnaps her again. There are all manner of changes you can make to the game world, some on an individual level, some which require coordinated action by a large guild.
Which one do you prefer?
It's a hypothetical to gage how important character is to you, over the game world. If you want to say, I dont' like either one, I like X instead, then you're avoiding the question and the purpose of the thread, but of course that is your prerogative to say, I like monkeys, instead of answering the question.
Comments
Definitely a game focused on the world. The reason I quit wow, was because constant grinding and pointless quests got soooo boring. I prefer games like EVE because its a persistent world players affect. Also like Global Agenda because of the territory capture. I don't care if there is a massive amount of skills, and char customization, I just want a player driven world in any game I play.
By the examples you've given I'd easily say that the world is more important but you seem to be heavily focussed on purely the mechanics side of things.
Without the examples I'd have said that the most important thing is feeling like my character is actually a part of the world... so a bit of both.
The character of course. The way it should be done is how one plays single player games though. Even though millions of players save the princess around the world, I only see myself doing it. I don't usually care how far some dude has gotten in the story, because it doesn't affect me. Once I save the princess, then I really consider her saved. What happens before or after that in other people's game doesn't really bother me.
Not the way some people like it, but definitely the way I prefer it. I want to see what the developers have created, not what I can create myself within the game's limits. Often enough that means better experience for me than if I or other players decided what happens and when. Players just can't do what the devs can when it comes to it.
Hmm hard to say but I think I would prefer a cool world which I can affect.
But it really depends on all the features the game offers. ;-)
One of the points I was trying to make is that people often say they want a "sandbox". Then most of what they say is they want skills instead of classes, as if this suddenly changes the game into a sandbox.
I think that's the least important feature, the method your character advances, of a sandbox design.
Obviously the ideal game would be both a balanced skill system, because it provides the most choices to the player for designing a character (balance meaning everyone can't min max to the same template, because that doesn't work) , and an interactive world.
I think, however, many players are primarily concerned with their character.
The way you described it, it sounds like this:
Be a demi-god in a boxed world where you can fight practically any way you want to, but it becomes repetitive.
Be an actual god shaping and crafting the world with nearly every possibility at your fingertips.
Kind of biased, if you ask me, but I'd obviously pick the latter.
I would pick character,
I don't care for a skill system with no caps and a bajillion skills, I just want to make an interesting character and do it the way I want. This goes beyond character abilities, and the system is largely irrelavent, though I don't like capsless systems period. I want to be able to give my character personality, the abilities they use has to reflect that, but also I need stuff like character customization in both body and clothing and other ways to express the personality of my character. So I would want more robust systems because a skill system alone cannot do all the things I want.
Don't you worry little buddy. You're dealing with a man of honor. However, honor requires a higher percentage of profit
It is SUPPOSED to be biased. It makes you choose between two choices which are not ideal, therefore causing you to prioritize.
You're not a "god" in the sandbox world. You have the same class choices as anyone else, and you can't simply wave a wand and change the game world. you have to organize with other players, which as we all know can be very, very difficult to do.
I would prefer a balance of character and world.
One of the points I was trying to make is that people often say they want a "sandbox". Then most of what they say is they want skills instead of classes, as if this suddenly changes the game into a sandbox.
I think that's the least important feature, the method your character advances, of a sandbox design.
Obviously the ideal game would be both a balanced skill system, because it provides the most choices to the player for designing a character (balance meaning everyone can't min max to the same template, because that doesn't work) , and an interactive world.
I think, however, many players are primarily concerned with their character.
Ah fair enough, I see the point you're trying to make. I think many people don't really understand the sandbox genre; the first thing most of the pro-sandbox players these days would say in such a game is 'what do i do?' I guess that character advancement style has become something of an icon for the sandbox style itself though so that's all many players associate with the term.
Sandbox world implies sandbox character progression, ie skills.
Personally I think the world needs to match the character progression, consistency is important.
<Welcome to my world>
for me, world.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Ok, you win a monkey.
It depends on the scale/design of the game. For a large classic style MMO, I would say world. Since you basically just hitting buttons so the world better be interesting and compelling. However a game like Navyfield (not really an MMO but go along with it) Really only has an instanced blue ocean as a world. Sure there is an island map, but basically the maps are all the same. But the progression of skip trees and sailors trees, plus the combat is just fun and engaging. I have probably played it on and off longer than any other game I have ever played.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
I don't have much of a desire to have an "affect on the world," except perhaps to be able to build a home in it.
That is because games where you can have "an affect on the world" usually means one of two dynamics - (a) RvR PvP, which doesn't interest me, or (2) some uber guild being able to destroy something that won't come back for a long time if ever, or enjoy exclusivity over some game content, which also doesn't interest me.
Now and then there is some type of action that can be taken that opens up new content. That would be cool except for the fact that the game makers can never resist making it where the last stage of whatever that is must be a battle between some guild I'm not a member of fighting some boss, to which fight I'm not invited. So whoop de doo on that. In the current hierachical concepts that dominate game design, the rule of thumb is that if it's worth doing it has to be done by a large raid guild. God forbid there be some puzzle that some individual could solve and make a difference.
So call me cynical, but I've come to see "hey you can affect the world!" as a dog whistle to PvPers and large guild raiders on how much more important to game design they will be than they already are. That's nice for them but does jack for me.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
I like this. I too would actually be perfectly happy with just a decent housing system as far as having an affect on the world.
I need the world to be immersive. Character is also important, ofc, but a good world comes first in my opinion.
"EVE is likely the best MMORPG that you've never really understood or played" - Kyleran
It is hard to design features that allow a single player to make a difference on the world, while still maintaining some sort of balance.
If EVERY player could make major changes to the world solo, the world would or at least could, change so much and so fast that it would be a chaotic mess. So there does seem to be an upper limit of how much you can allow a single player to change the world, and still maintain some sort of coherence.
Housing is a good example of a player changing the world. To some extent so is crafting. You bring something into the world that didn't exist before, and it has an impact on other players, it becomes gear they can use.
That's my defintion of "change the world" basically has to have an impact on other players.
If you build a house, and before a player could walk right through that patch, and now they see a house and htey have to walk around, then you've certainly changed the game world for other players.
What else would you like as a feature that can change the game world that a single player could do, besides build a house?
For me it's both.
My character is important. I want to be able to have as customizable a character as possible. That's why I like (good) skill-based systems as opposed to class-based systems most of the time and is the main reason I've been playing EvE for 3 years even though I'm not much of a sci-fi fan.
But the world is equally important. I made the determination some time ago that I wasn't going to play a monthly fee for an MMO where the actions of players don't meaningfully impact the larger world, or games that don't offer any meaningful challenges - if everyone can do everything why am I paying a monthly fee to do it?
You win a monkey.
It is quite possible. Here is a specific example: Xanthe`s Earring of Nature/PoTC Quest.
In original EQ, a quest was introduced that was very hard and required the solving of a great many puzzles. All over the lands, people were working to solve this mystery. The first person to complete the quest was Lady Xanthe Ravenwolf on Bertoxxulous, and the quest reward earring was then named after her. Note that it is not named after a guild, because this was not another Uber Guild X kills Y scenario.
In original SWG, pretty much every player in the game started out trying to solve the mystery of how to become a Jedi. Sure, SOE messed that one up, but the point is any individual player could have solved it and the introduction of Jedis into the game certainly was a major addition.
Several games, most recently The Secret World, have put out puzzles that have to be solved before the location of their website or information about their game can be learned.
This is not new. It is as old as Oedipus solving the riddle of the Sphinx, which caused the Sphinx to destroy itself. The riddle was not solved by, or required a battle involving, an army. The same question was posed to all travelers. They all had the same opportunity and any one of them could have figured it out and made a major difference.
But nowadays the pinheads who make games have forgotten this art. It goes against their deeply held notions of l33tness to imagine that an important, game altering challenge could be posed, where the recognition for that accomplishment might go to one clever individual rather than to <Uber Guild Du Jour>.
Of course, you can't have everyone in the game changing the entire world every day, as in the final chapter [SPOLIER ALERT] of The Lathe of Heaven.
But that's not what I am proposing. It is entirely possible to introduce game altering mysteries into games that are hard enough that they are not easy to solve, but that one person could solve them. And in my opinion, games have been made very shallow by the absence of such challenges.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
It is hard to design features that allow a single player to make a difference on the world, while still maintaining some sort of balance.
If EVERY player could make major changes to the world solo, the world would or at least could, change so much and so fast that it would be a chaotic mess. So there does seem to be an upper limit of how much you can allow a single player to change the world, and still maintain some sort of coherence.
Housing is a good example of a player changing the world. To some extent so is crafting. You bring something into the world that didn't exist before, and it has an impact on other players, it becomes gear they can use.
That's my defintion of "change the world" basically has to have an impact on other players.
If you build a house, and before a player could walk right through that patch, and now they see a house and htey have to walk around, then you've certainly changed the game world for other players.
What else would you like as a feature that can change the game world that a single player could do, besides build a house?
Have you ever played Minecraft (i think that's the name) It's a pure building game somewhat like online lego, anyone can build anything and anyone can destroy anything.
It's an interesting dynamic, of course there are the occaisional screams of people that had their work destroyed, but I think the key is not to have something where its value is in its permanence, but in its creativity.
It's the old "ice-swan" adage.
When I log into minecraft I love how the whole world has changed and set about exploring what people have done. How the server has eroded my work away or built into it. Also quite interesting is how 90% of people will work with you rather than against you. Maybe it's just a good community, but "griefing" is pretty rare. I guess this is why pvp focused mmos are less successful =p
Also, thanks for the monkey, I will pet it and love it, and I will call him monkey
(yeah I should have read the thread more - my bad)
On the "guilds be ownin' ma world!" point, upkeep might fix that, when upkeep is exponential. Though maybe I shouldn't be here, since i'm not a solo player, and I don't really understand the solo mindset *shrug* (I play healers / support classes)
<Welcome to my world>
You win a monkey.
Totally agree with him, its something thats actually very hard to find in a game though..
It is quite possible. Here is a specific example: Xanthe`s Earring of Nature/PoTC Quest.
In original EQ, a quest was introduced that was very hard and required the solving of a great many puzzles. All over the lands, people were working to solve this mystery. The first person to complete the quest was Lady Xanthe Ravenwolf on Bertoxxulous, and the quest reward earring was then named after her. Note that it is not named after a guild, because this was not another Uber Guild X kills Y scenario.
In original SWG, pretty much every player in the game started out trying to solve the mystery of how to become a Jedi. Sure, SOE messed that one up, but the point is any individual player could have solved it and the introduction of Jedis into the game certainly was a major addition.
Several games, most recently The Secret World, have put out puzzles that have to be solved before the location of their website or information about their game can be learned.
This is not new. It is as old as Oedipus solving the riddle of the Sphinx, which caused the Sphinx to destroy itself. The riddle was not solved by, or required a battle involving, an army. The same question was posed to all travelers. They all had the same opportunity and any one of them could have figured it out and made a major difference.
But nowadays the pinheads who make games have forgotten this art. It goes against their deeply held notions of l33tness to imagine that an important, game altering challenge could be posed, where the recognition for that accomplishment might go to one clever individual rather than to <Uber Guild Du Jour>.
Of course, you can't have everyone in the game changing the entire world every day, as in the final chapter [SPOLIER ALERT] of The Lathe of Heaven.
But that's not what I am proposing. It is entirely possible to introduce game altering mysteries into games that are hard enough that they are not easy to solve, but that one person could solve them. And in my opinion, games have been made very shallow by the absence of such challenges.
Becoming the first jedi doesn't change the game world, it changes that person's character. Naming a quest item after the first person to do the quest changes the game world, but only in a meaningless way, the name of the quest. But nothing about the world is changed, is it?
What's different fro me after you become Jedi? Nothing. What's different for me after solve the quest? Nothing, except the quest now has a name. Yes, the quest is now called something different, but it has no real impact of any kind on me.