...because the online community also limits the possibilities for content by its very nature.
Y'know, maybe it's just me, but the original lure of MMOs was that the online community lifts barriers to content by their very nature, don't they?
In Fallout New Vegas it's me, Boone, and ED-E versus the entire Legion. In an MMO I could be bringing the entire NCR Army with me.
What we're really getting down to is the static nature of MMOs and the reason for it is so that one person can't disrupt/eliminate content for another person; that content must persist so everyone can do it.
And when I say content I primarily mean questing. So if we accept the lame nature of the gameworld being a result of questing what would be possible if there simply weren't quests?
What if the gameworld was 100% dynamic? Players could build and destroy every single object, building, vehicle, et cetera, in the gameworld.
Would this type of content be an engaging substitution for quests?
But these are truly huge endeavors orchestrated by groups and not individuals so the sacrifice here seems to be solo play... but then that solo play questing is basically what holds the dynamism of the world back in the first place... so perhaps it's a price worth paying for an experiment or two.
I know I'd be incredibly stoked to jump into a gameworld in which the most minute detail could be altered by characters. And though questing may not exist I don't think it's a huge leap to throw in some NPC factions with some actual goals that they attempt to realize.
I think another aspect which would have be somewhat minimized, at least relative to other MMOs, is combat. And by "minimize" I mean simply to make less frequent which I feel is a sacrifice that would have to be made as each encounter itself would in some way help to shape the gameworld. So there would be less but it would have more meaning.
It's certainly an interesting thing to ponder... I hope one day some devs make a game like that.
I've dreamed about such things as well, but that's what they are and probably will be for a very long time still: dreams.
A 100% dynamic world just isn't feasible right now, I can see no way to do it. And other people's actions getting in the way of your own is indeed the big problem.
Even in the real world we need to have institutions to regulate human behaviour, or we'd end up fucking each other and ourselves up real good.
Speed that up by about a million times in an online space and you get some messy stuff real quick; which is unacceptable for most developers (and it wouldn't last long anyway).
The problem isn't questing however; if you didn't have the quests in FNV, if you didn't have the backstory, the dialogue and the characters... what would you have?
You'd just end up with differently dressed dudes shooting at each other in some landscape.
For me, that is not enough.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I've dreamed about such things as well, but that's what they are and probably will be for a very long time still: dreams.
A 100% dynamic world just isn't feasible right now, I can see no way to do it. And other people's actions getting in the way of your own is indeed the big problem.
Even in the real world we need to have institutions to regulate human behaviour, or we'd end up fucking each other and ourselves up real good.
Speed that up by about a million times in an online space and you get some messy stuff real quick; which is unacceptable for most developers (and it wouldn't last long anyway).
The problem isn't questing however; if you didn't have the quests in FNV, if you didn't have the backstory, the dialogue and the characters... what would you have?
You'd just end up with differently dressed dudes shooting at each other in some landscape.
For me, that is not enough.
A good example of this is Minecraft. There are almost zero reprocussions for joining a random "Classic Free" server and griefing the hell out of someones buildings. People just don't do well without rules. Rules keep honest people honest.
The problem isn't questing however; if you didn't have the quests in FNV, if you didn't have the backstory, the dialogue and the characters... what would you have?
You'd just end up with differently dressed dudes shooting at each other in some landscape.
For me, that is not enough.
That's different though, that's a single player game. You can have the quests because there's nothing to stand in the way of the player. There's no other person who needs content but will be deprived of it because of your actions. And you make the player feel like a badass by basically exclaiming, "Behold! You've changed the entire world!"
It works great for a single player game because the questing has no need to remain static; it's done once and it's over with forever. Ain't no on else gonna come along and help them ghouls launch that spaceship; just you, baby, just you.
But that doesn't apply to an MMO. I believe there could still be plenty of content, and perhaps even quests if they're procedurally generated and attached to dynamic NPCs, but it seems to me the real content needs to rest primarily on world construction, territorial control, and conflict spawned from it all.
So I don't think it would work in the context of combat-centric PvE style MMO. If you want the combat I think you have to accept that it's going to be mostly PvP and that it may even be semi-infrequent depending on the condition and quantity of your rivals.
You could still have some major NPC factions but I think they need to be heavily supplemented by players, need a clear purpose/objective, and they need to disseminate that purpose/objective to player members while simultaneously attempting to achieve it with their own NPC forces (and be opposed by appropriate factions with appropriate NPC forces).
Non-action combat can be good if there is a lot of depth to it. I think pretty much no MMO has a lot of depth to the decisions one player makes in combat.
I agree though, the guy at Undead Labs was pretty much correct when he said that MMOs get cut a lot of slack with bad gameplay because of the social environment.
Is that a typo?
If not, you should try playing a high level Warden in LotRO.
Why'd you ask if it was a typo if your best example is one class at high level in one game? How's that not pretty much non-existent? Assuming you're right about the high level LotRO Warden, of course.
Yes, it was my BEST example, as in, better than all my other examples. And yes, I say higher level because all classes are pretty simple at lower levels. I didn't want folks retorting "my level 10 Warden with only 5 manuevers wasn't deep at all!
But pretty much all the LotRO classes I've played up to a significant level have a pretty good amount of depth. It's pretty much never a matter of starting out with the highest damage attack and moving downward. There are different strategies for starting combat with different mobs, interrupt queues, tactical options...
I played LotRO for a couple weeks and it didn't seem to have any more depth than WoW in this regard. Considering I've never, ever heard anyone rave about LotRO's combat depth, I'm a bit skeptical about your claims (which are admittedly pretty vague). Seems to me you might just be exaggerating your favorite MMO.
Originally posted by Ihmotepp Originally posted by Gintoh Yes, many complain about the lack of freedom and such which is a problem, but the real problem is that the minute to minute gameplay isn't fun. Lets take WoW. You click on a guy, watch you Avatar hack on him for a little bit, maybe spam a few skill combos, then one of you falls over. Thrilling. This is why I would much rather play Fallen Earth then Eve. Yes I like the idea of Sandboxes better, and that's what eve has going for it, the metagame. The metagame is interesting, upgrading your ship and world polotics and such. But is the actual gameplay itself fun? Not really. Yes FE is a Themepark, but imo it's far more entertaining even though it lacks alot of depth. The real problem is that MMO's have crappy, boring gameplay. Not that a game is streamlined or open or whatever.
MMO were not originally designed to be single player games, that you played while other people were in teh world around you. They really were originally designed to be multiplayer, not as in there are lots of people playing the same game at the same time, but as in we have to play together to enjoy the game. Now, people take this same game, and play it like a single player, with other people around, and the Devs design them for this player base. What you describe is exactly what it feels like, IMO, to play a game that was designed to be multi player co-op, as a single player game. I've asked this all the time. Why would you play an MMO if not to play co-op? They've always had boring solo player game mechanics IMO. The only thing that ever made them fun was the co-op aspect. What you're describing is definitely NOT the original EQ or UO. true that. Although tbf everything gets boring played too much-which is what mmos do.
Yes, many complain about the lack of freedom and such which is a problem, but the real problem is that the minute to minute gameplay isn't fun. Lets take WoW. You click on a guy, watch you Avatar hack on him for a little bit, maybe spam a few skill combos, then one of you falls over.
Thrilling.
This is why I would much rather play Fallen Earth then Eve. Yes I like the idea of Sandboxes better, and that's what eve has going for it, the metagame. The metagame is interesting, upgrading your ship and world polotics and such. But is the actual gameplay itself fun? Not really. Yes FE is a Themepark, but imo it's far more entertaining even though it lacks alot of depth. The real problem is that MMO's have crappy, boring gameplay. Not that a game is streamlined or open or whatever.
The 'gameplay' is so generalized in your post it can apply to anything.
You shoot a guy and he falls dead. Boring! (so every FPS is boring?)
You stand and swing this sword to kill him! Boring! (So every action game is boring?)
I think it has to do with the fact the 'setup' is not as big as a single player (Vanquish, Bayonetta) along with the fact you kill millions of things with little variety. But then again, if you want a game that has 1000s hours of content you have to put in the repeat/grind.
I think one of the post in this thread hit the nail on the head. The market spoke by the millions, they don't want a sandbox MMORPG. They want a single player that you can play with other people if desired.
Gdemami - Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Yes, it was my BEST example, as in, better than all my other examples. And yes, I say higher level because all classes are pretty simple at lower levels. I didn't want folks retorting "my level 10 Warden with only 5 manuevers wasn't deep at all!
But pretty much all the LotRO classes I've played up to a significant level have a pretty good amount of depth. It's pretty much never a matter of starting out with the highest damage attack and moving downward. There are different strategies for starting combat with different mobs, interrupt queues, tactical options...
I played LotRO for a couple weeks and it didn't seem to have any more depth than WoW in this regard. Considering I've never, ever heard anyone rave about LotRO's combat depth, I'm a bit skeptical about your claims (which are admittedly pretty vague). Seems to me you might just be exaggerating your favorite MMO.
Played WoW for 3 months. Learned enough to know that there's more to it than button mashing.
Played LotRO for a year and a half and counting. IMO it goes further.
Vaguery begets vaguery. Since you don't really draw up any examples of what makes combat "deep", all I can say is that LotRO classes carry with them attacks and defenses which go well beyond your standard DPS/Tank/Healer models. And the Warden carries with it the most choices of them all. Enough to where knowing the right gambits and combinations of gambits for particular mobs makes all the difference.
Again, like WoW, you can button mash and you'll probably survive most standard encounters. Learn to actually play, and you'll prosper.
It sounds like you don't really want to go to the effort of learning, yet want to claim that MMO's have "shallow" combat. If you're not willing to learn, you don't really have much credibility to make the claim.
It sounds like you don't really want to go to the effort of learning, yet want to claim that MMO's have "shallow" combat. If you're not willing to learn, you don't really have much credibility to make the claim.
Believe it or not, I don't actually have time to go and look up everything everyone says is worthwhile on the internet, let alone what everyone says is worthwhile as far as gaming goes. Let's face it, most of what people say on the forums is crap -- which is probably a good argument for me spending less time on the forums, but I digress. Just because I don't prioritize what you say above what everyone else says doesn't mean I'm "unwilling to learn."
That's different though, that's a single player game. You can have the quests because there's nothing to stand in the way of the player. There's no other person who needs content but will be deprived of it because of your actions. And you make the player feel like a badass by basically exclaiming, "Behold! You've changed the entire world!"
It works great for a single player game because the questing has no need to remain static; it's done once and it's over with forever. Ain't no on else gonna come along and help them ghouls launch that spaceship; just you, baby, just you.
But that doesn't apply to an MMO. I believe there could still be plenty of content, and perhaps even quests if they're procedurally generated and attached to dynamic NPCs, but it seems to me the real content needs to rest primarily on world construction, territorial control, and conflict spawned from it all.
So I don't think it would work in the context of combat-centric PvE style MMO. If you want the combat I think you have to accept that it's going to be mostly PvP and that it may even be semi-infrequent depending on the condition and quantity of your rivals.
You could still have some major NPC factions but I think they need to be heavily supplemented by players, need a clear purpose/objective, and they need to disseminate that purpose/objective to player members while simultaneously attempting to achieve it with their own NPC forces (and be opposed by appropriate factions with appropriate NPC forces).
The thing is, you're thinking of trying to make a realistic online society here, which has certain repurcussions; even assuming all the mechanics could be made to work without massive balance problems, incredible griefing and probably crazy coding and mind boggling money investments.
When you're modeling a game after realism as to make wars and such, you're also inevitably modeling the online community after real society (in a way) and while that is very interesting from a certain perspective, it is also frustrating for many players.
Do you instigate wars, run massive building projects, change the world with a few words or perform heroic actions for the good of all in real life (or, hopefully not, play the role of the evil sociopath). Good for you if so, but chances are high you're just a guy pushing buttons in some firm day in day out, doing bandwork, or turning burgers. And those chances are much much higher than that you would be doing something of the aforementioned.
If you model a game after a high degree of realism, you're going to end up with different classes of players, those who control resources and those who don't, those who are invested and those who aren't and inevitably... those who are lucky and those who aren't.
And this society model is needed, for if everyone gets to be creative, if everyone is in power, well... stuff would probably turn out real bad in your game.
Most people playing an uber simulation won't ever be in charge of anything, they won't feel like they're playing FNV as the Courier, they'll just be some NPC and that is not what they want after coming home from a day of being a cog in the machine as well; which companies making games know, because they make entertainment products and therefore they will never spend the obscene amounts of money to make such a game.
Real sandbox games where everyone gets to be creative, like Minecraft, are best left small scale and relatively simple, as to not create the drag caused by having a massive online society behind it imo.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
It sounds like you don't really want to go to the effort of learning, yet want to claim that MMO's have "shallow" combat. If you're not willing to learn, you don't really have much credibility to make the claim.
Believe it or not, I don't actually have time to go and look up everything everyone says is worthwhile on the internet, let alone what everyone says is worthwhile as far as gaming goes. Let's face it, most of what people say on the forums is crap -- which is probably a good argument for me spending less time on the forums, but I digress. Just because I don't prioritize what you say above what everyone else says doesn't mean I'm "unwilling to learn."
Again...
...if you can't be bothered to try MMO's past a 10 day trial, then your opinion regarding the depth of their combat has little to no weight. It would be like me playing Fallout: New Vegas for 2 hours and complaining about lack of content.
It sounds like you don't really want to go to the effort of learning, yet want to claim that MMO's have "shallow" combat. If you're not willing to learn, you don't really have much credibility to make the claim.
Believe it or not, I don't actually have time to go and look up everything everyone says is worthwhile on the internet, let alone what everyone says is worthwhile as far as gaming goes. Let's face it, most of what people say on the forums is crap -- which is probably a good argument for me spending less time on the forums, but I digress. Just because I don't prioritize what you say above what everyone else says doesn't mean I'm "unwilling to learn."
Again...
...if you can't be bothered to try MMO's past a 10 day trial, then your opinion regarding the depth of their combat has little to no weight. It would be like me playing Fallout: New Vegas for 2 hours and complaining about lack of content.
If a 10 day trial doesn't give you a good idea of the combat system, then I propose the game is badly designed. That trial is supposed to be what makes me WANT to play the game.
Thanks for proposing I have to grind through 10+ days of rather intense gaming to even begin to enjoy the game. Oops, I meant "no thanks!"
Comments
I've dreamed about such things as well, but that's what they are and probably will be for a very long time still: dreams.
A 100% dynamic world just isn't feasible right now, I can see no way to do it. And other people's actions getting in the way of your own is indeed the big problem.
Even in the real world we need to have institutions to regulate human behaviour, or we'd end up fucking each other and ourselves up real good.
Speed that up by about a million times in an online space and you get some messy stuff real quick; which is unacceptable for most developers (and it wouldn't last long anyway).
The problem isn't questing however; if you didn't have the quests in FNV, if you didn't have the backstory, the dialogue and the characters... what would you have?
You'd just end up with differently dressed dudes shooting at each other in some landscape.
For me, that is not enough.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
A good example of this is Minecraft. There are almost zero reprocussions for joining a random "Classic Free" server and griefing the hell out of someones buildings. People just don't do well without rules. Rules keep honest people honest.
He who keeps his cool best wins.
That's different though, that's a single player game. You can have the quests because there's nothing to stand in the way of the player. There's no other person who needs content but will be deprived of it because of your actions. And you make the player feel like a badass by basically exclaiming, "Behold! You've changed the entire world!"
It works great for a single player game because the questing has no need to remain static; it's done once and it's over with forever. Ain't no on else gonna come along and help them ghouls launch that spaceship; just you, baby, just you.
But that doesn't apply to an MMO. I believe there could still be plenty of content, and perhaps even quests if they're procedurally generated and attached to dynamic NPCs, but it seems to me the real content needs to rest primarily on world construction, territorial control, and conflict spawned from it all.
So I don't think it would work in the context of combat-centric PvE style MMO. If you want the combat I think you have to accept that it's going to be mostly PvP and that it may even be semi-infrequent depending on the condition and quantity of your rivals.
You could still have some major NPC factions but I think they need to be heavily supplemented by players, need a clear purpose/objective, and they need to disseminate that purpose/objective to player members while simultaneously attempting to achieve it with their own NPC forces (and be opposed by appropriate factions with appropriate NPC forces).
I played LotRO for a couple weeks and it didn't seem to have any more depth than WoW in this regard. Considering I've never, ever heard anyone rave about LotRO's combat depth, I'm a bit skeptical about your claims (which are admittedly pretty vague). Seems to me you might just be exaggerating your favorite MMO.
MMO were not originally designed to be single player games, that you played while other people were in teh world around you. They really were originally designed to be multiplayer, not as in there are lots of people playing the same game at the same time, but as in we have to play together to enjoy the game.
Now, people take this same game, and play it like a single player, with other people around, and the Devs design them for this player base.
What you describe is exactly what it feels like, IMO, to play a game that was designed to be multi player co-op, as a single player game.
I've asked this all the time. Why would you play an MMO if not to play co-op?
They've always had boring solo player game mechanics IMO. The only thing that ever made them fun was the co-op aspect.
What you're describing is definitely NOT the original EQ or UO.
true that. Although tbf everything gets boring played too much-which is what mmos do.
The 'gameplay' is so generalized in your post it can apply to anything.
You shoot a guy and he falls dead. Boring! (so every FPS is boring?)
You stand and swing this sword to kill him! Boring! (So every action game is boring?)
I think it has to do with the fact the 'setup' is not as big as a single player (Vanquish, Bayonetta) along with the fact you kill millions of things with little variety. But then again, if you want a game that has 1000s hours of content you have to put in the repeat/grind.
I think one of the post in this thread hit the nail on the head. The market spoke by the millions, they don't want a sandbox MMORPG. They want a single player that you can play with other people if desired.
Gdemami -
Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.
Played WoW for 3 months. Learned enough to know that there's more to it than button mashing.
Played LotRO for a year and a half and counting. IMO it goes further.
Vaguery begets vaguery. Since you don't really draw up any examples of what makes combat "deep", all I can say is that LotRO classes carry with them attacks and defenses which go well beyond your standard DPS/Tank/Healer models. And the Warden carries with it the most choices of them all. Enough to where knowing the right gambits and combinations of gambits for particular mobs makes all the difference.
http://mkweb.bcgsc.ca/lotro/
Again, like WoW, you can button mash and you'll probably survive most standard encounters. Learn to actually play, and you'll prosper.
It sounds like you don't really want to go to the effort of learning, yet want to claim that MMO's have "shallow" combat. If you're not willing to learn, you don't really have much credibility to make the claim.
Believe it or not, I don't actually have time to go and look up everything everyone says is worthwhile on the internet, let alone what everyone says is worthwhile as far as gaming goes. Let's face it, most of what people say on the forums is crap -- which is probably a good argument for me spending less time on the forums, but I digress. Just because I don't prioritize what you say above what everyone else says doesn't mean I'm "unwilling to learn."
Or, the real problem with MMORPGs is people become addicted and play whether it's fun or not. Moderation, people..
~Miles "Tails" Prower out! Catch me if you can!
Come Join us at www.globalequestria.com - Meet other fans of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic!
The thing is, you're thinking of trying to make a realistic online society here, which has certain repurcussions; even assuming all the mechanics could be made to work without massive balance problems, incredible griefing and probably crazy coding and mind boggling money investments.
When you're modeling a game after realism as to make wars and such, you're also inevitably modeling the online community after real society (in a way) and while that is very interesting from a certain perspective, it is also frustrating for many players.
Do you instigate wars, run massive building projects, change the world with a few words or perform heroic actions for the good of all in real life (or, hopefully not, play the role of the evil sociopath). Good for you if so, but chances are high you're just a guy pushing buttons in some firm day in day out, doing bandwork, or turning burgers. And those chances are much much higher than that you would be doing something of the aforementioned.
If you model a game after a high degree of realism, you're going to end up with different classes of players, those who control resources and those who don't, those who are invested and those who aren't and inevitably... those who are lucky and those who aren't.
And this society model is needed, for if everyone gets to be creative, if everyone is in power, well... stuff would probably turn out real bad in your game.
Most people playing an uber simulation won't ever be in charge of anything, they won't feel like they're playing FNV as the Courier, they'll just be some NPC and that is not what they want after coming home from a day of being a cog in the machine as well; which companies making games know, because they make entertainment products and therefore they will never spend the obscene amounts of money to make such a game.
Real sandbox games where everyone gets to be creative, like Minecraft, are best left small scale and relatively simple, as to not create the drag caused by having a massive online society behind it imo.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Again...
...if you can't be bothered to try MMO's past a 10 day trial, then your opinion regarding the depth of their combat has little to no weight. It would be like me playing Fallout: New Vegas for 2 hours and complaining about lack of content.
If a 10 day trial doesn't give you a good idea of the combat system, then I propose the game is badly designed. That trial is supposed to be what makes me WANT to play the game.
Thanks for proposing I have to grind through 10+ days of rather intense gaming to even begin to enjoy the game. Oops, I meant "no thanks!"
Edit: Insert Thread Title Here!