Help me Curtis Montague Schilling, You're my only hope

mmofanatic

He is my Obi-Wan at this point. I am putting the rest of my faith in this genre on his team and their project.

So please 38 Studios, take your time. Make a game people want to PLAY and they will PAY for it. Make sure it is finished before you release it. You have the advantage of watching as all the other games fail, learn from their mistakes. Don't set a release date just to push it back another year. Don't create hype that you don't even believe yourself. You can save this genre, I have faith in you.

Nadia

38 studios recently released the teaser trailer for their single player RPG

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkTBLx8cIdE

 

 

Amaranthar

So far, all I've seen from them is more of the same kind of promises of something different that are vague enough to sound exactly like everybody else. That's not to say I'm not watching and hoping, but it doesn't mean anything either.

I've said for years that if a company wants to make a great MMORPG that's rich in background, the best way to do that would be to make a Single Player Game first, ala Ultima.

The reason that a pre-game in this fashion is better than a novel series or movies is that players actually played it before the MMORPG comes out. And with that, you get those sorts of mysteries that the players write (blog/fan site) about first hand, like a history. By the players themselves. And conflicts of what "actually happened" or the meaning of "historical facts" by the players who played the games before the MMO add a rich background to build on inside the world of the MMORPG. This mimics real life history and it's mysteries. It's a depth you just can't quite get any other way.

Use it wisely, Curtis Montague Schilling. Forget making a game (speaking of the MMORPG here). Make us a world.

Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Use it wisely, Curtis Montague Schilling. Forget making a game (speaking of the MMORPG here). Make us a world.

Let's hope they don't intentionally make that bad decision.

Players want a game.  They want a *new* game; they want a *fun* game; but they want a game.

If it's also a world in the process so much the better, but players care about fun core gameplay and social opportunities first and foremost.

thinktank001

Originally posted by mmofanatic

He is my Obi-Wan at this point. I am putting the rest of my faith in this genre on his team and their project.

So please 38 Studios, take your time. Make a game people want to PLAY and they will PAY for it. Make sure it is finished before you release it. You have the advantage of watching as all the other games fail, learn from their mistakes. Don't set a release date just to push it back another year. Don't create hype that you don't even believe yourself. You can save this genre, I have faith in you.

 

I was hopeful too that he would produce the answer, but after that last round table discussion that MMORPG posted; he appeared just as clueless as the rest.

Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Use it wisely, Curtis Montague Schilling. Forget making a game (speaking of the MMORPG here). Make us a world.

Let's hope they don't intentionally make that bad decision.

Players want a game.  They want a *new* game; they want a *fun* game; but they want a game.

If it's also a world in the process so much the better, but players care about fun core gameplay and social opportunities first and foremost.

Well ! 

At last we are starting to agree. Where, my antagonistic friend and debater of all things MMORPG, did I ever say that fun wasn't part of the equation? And yes, that is in "gameplay", of course. But it doesn't have to play like a game with "go here and do this to get that" features alone. 

And being a world in the process is so much better, it's what gamers generally have been waiting for, looking for.

And speaking of social opportunities, as you so rightly said, adding a chatroom to a game does nothing socially for the game itself. It just merges what otherwise would be two separate things together in the game. It's not adding anything. It's playing the game with ICQ running. It doesn't bring players together in a community that's any deeper than that. What MMORPGs need is to foster community growth that means something inside the game, as in player run cities, merchant guilds, "religious" cults, etc. (Not point systems and badges.)

And yes, this is "first and foremost". To do this, MMORPGs need to get away from the wild growth in power we see today because that separates players. MMORPGs need to get away from zoning players through it. I know there's a problem that comes with that in player numbers gathering too much in one area. That should eb fixable by a combination of factors, and it seems to me that the game can actually give players reasons' to "be small"...to an extent. Enough of an extent to cause players to want to separate and not cluster. These mechanics can come in the social sphere through resource availability, land requirements, etc.

In a great "Sandbox World", everything should affect everything else, just as in real life. That's a big part of the simulation. And a well designed game can use that to fix problems in a natural seeming way.

But nowhere do I expect that even a Sandbox World Simulation shouldn't be fun and exciting.

And I know such a product is more costly to make than a Themepark. That is, after all, why we had Themeparks in the first place. But the time has come for the change, the expansion into new territory (that's actually old, but undeveloped).

Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

 Where, my antagonistic friend and debater of all things MMORPG, did I ever say that fun wasn't part of the equation? 

And yes, this is "first and foremost". To do this, MMORPGs need to get away from the wild growth in power we see today because that separates players. MMORPGs need to get away from zoning players through it. I know there's a problem that comes with that in player numbers gathering too much in one area. That should eb fixable by a combination of factors, and it seems to me that the game can actually give players reasons' to "be small"...to an extent. Enough of an extent to cause players to want to separate and not cluster. These mechanics can come in the social sphere through resource availability, land requirements, etc.

In a great "Sandbox World", everything should affect everything else, just as in real life. That's a big part of the simulation. And a well designed game can use that to fix problems in a natural seeming way.

But nowhere do I expect that even a Sandbox World Simulation shouldn't be fun and exciting.

And I know such a product is more costly to make than a Themepark. That is, after all, why we had Themeparks in the first place. But the time has come for the change, the expansion into new territory (that's actually old, but undeveloped).

When you say "forget making a game, make a world", the inherently means sacrificing fun for the sake of world coherency.  Which directly translates to the overall game being less fun when making a game isn't the primary focus. Nearly all games (certainly all MMORPGs) make some concessions to fitting a fiction, but if you give too much strength to those concessions you let all the fun gameplay fizzle out of a product.

Zones make sense for the majority of progression-based games.  RPGs are, at their heart, progression-based games.  You invest time, you're stronger/better/richer.  As you become stronger, if the problems you're solving don't also become stronger (which translates to higher level mobs) they cease to be problems -- and without interesting problems to solve, games aren't fun.

The cost is sort of a two-fold issue of (A) you have to do the (expensive) R&D legwork of making a fun sandbox (because nobody else has), and (B) unless you make your game entertaining to lots of people, any investment is going to seem costly because you're not going to make your money back!

Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

 Where, my antagonistic friend and debater of all things MMORPG, did I ever say that fun wasn't part of the equation? 

And yes, this is "first and foremost". To do this, MMORPGs need to get away from the wild growth in power we see today because that separates players. MMORPGs need to get away from zoning players through it. I know there's a problem that comes with that in player numbers gathering too much in one area. That should eb fixable by a combination of factors, and it seems to me that the game can actually give players reasons' to "be small"...to an extent. Enough of an extent to cause players to want to separate and not cluster. These mechanics can come in the social sphere through resource availability, land requirements, etc.

In a great "Sandbox World", everything should affect everything else, just as in real life. That's a big part of the simulation. And a well designed game can use that to fix problems in a natural seeming way.

But nowhere do I expect that even a Sandbox World Simulation shouldn't be fun and exciting.

And I know such a product is more costly to make than a Themepark. That is, after all, why we had Themeparks in the first place. But the time has come for the change, the expansion into new territory (that's actually old, but undeveloped).

When you say "forget making a game, make a world", the inherently means sacrificing fun for the sake of world coherency.  Which directly translates to the overall game being less fun when making a game isn't the primary focus. Nearly all games (certainly all MMORPGs) make some concessions to fitting a fiction, but if you give too much strength to those concessions you let all the fun gameplay fizzle out of a product.

Zones make sense for the majority of progression-based games.  RPGs are, at their heart, progression-based games.  You invest time, you're stronger/better/richer.  As you become stronger, if the problems you're solving don't also become stronger (which translates to higher level mobs) they cease to be problems -- and without interesting problems to solve, games aren't fun.

The cost is sort of a two-fold issue of (A) you have to do the (expensive) R&D legwork of making a fun sandbox (because nobody else has), and (B) unless you make your game entertaining to lots of people, any investment is going to seem costly because you're not going to make your money back!

"When you say "forget making a game, make a world", the inherently means sacrificing fun for the sake of world coherency."

See Axe, this is your assumption. But it's wrong. I know where you get it from, I've seen all those posts too. But "just a world to live in" isn't what we need, we need one that you can do that...plus has loads of fun features.

I've said before, you can have almost everything that WoW has, and still make it a Sandbox Worldly game. But that, of course, would be like making WoW at what it cost, plus adding all the code, extra world space, and everything else needed on top of that. But something between would also work. There's lots of room for give and take.

"any investment is going to seem costly because you're not going to make your money back!"

Here again, you are making an assumption. And we keep going back and forth here. No one has done a good job of making a game like this since UO (and UO was crippled by wide open PvP as well as being old and at the beginning before amny gamers knew about MMORPGs). Eve isn't a full world, it's a Space Sim. So there's not much to go on here to come to your conclusion. And your reply to this is always "that's because it won't work". But there's no evidence of that. All the while, players keep saying they want "something more".

For how long do gamers have to not buy the new releases in droves? For how long do gamers have to say the same thing, "I want something more" and "I'm bored with this"?

Aganazer

Originally posted by Axehilt

When you say "forget making a game, make a world", the inherently means sacrificing fun for the sake of world coherency.  Which directly translates to the overall game being less fun when making a game isn't the primary focus. Nearly all games (certainly all MMORPGs) make some concessions to fitting a fiction, but if you give too much strength to those concessions you let all the fun gameplay fizzle out of a product.

Describing anything as "fun" whether it be a "game" or a "world" isn't really saying anything. You're assuming that "game=fun" and "world=not fun". I can think of numerous examples of games that successfully sacraficed some of the "game" to create a better "world" that I preferred. Simulation can be very rewarding even if its not the "YEEEHAAAAW! ZOMG Did you see that!?" type of fun.

I agree that we should never "forget making a game", but that doesn't mean we should "forget making a world" as well. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to develop a game then try to make it into more of a world. I may prefer the approach of making a world then turning it into a great game.

I think people want a home (by that I don't neccessarily mean housing, but its a good start). Its difficult to call something home if its too game'y. IMO it would need to have some very deep rooted elements of a world simulation.

ThomasN7

I can't wait to play Kingdoms of Amalur. It will be a day 1 purchase for me.

Nethermancer

Trailer looks good lol........combat is a little to flashy for my taste....but thats just pure opinion.

chikso

Their RPG teaser didn't really excite me, we'll see...

Eronakis

Originally posted by Aganazer

Originally posted by Axehilt

When you say "forget making a game, make a world", the inherently means sacrificing fun for the sake of world coherency.  Which directly translates to the overall game being less fun when making a game isn't the primary focus. Nearly all games (certainly all MMORPGs) make some concessions to fitting a fiction, but if you give too much strength to those concessions you let all the fun gameplay fizzle out of a product.

Describing anything as "fun" whether it be a "game" or a "world" isn't really saying anything. You're assuming that "game=fun" and "world=not fun". I can think of numerous examples of games that successfully sacraficed some of the "game" to create a better "world" that I preferred. Simulation can be very rewarding even if its not the "YEEEHAAAAW! ZOMG Did you see that!?" type of fun.

I agree that we should never "forget making a game", but that doesn't mean we should "forget making a world" as well. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to develop a game then try to make it into more of a world. I may prefer the approach of making a world then turning it into a great game.

I think people want a home (by that I don't neccessarily mean housing, but its a good start). Its difficult to call something home if its too game'y. IMO it would need to have some very deep rooted elements of a world simulation.

You have hit the nail on the head at the same time of killing two birds with the same stone! Well done!

-------

I am very much looking forward to 38 studios implementation. From what RA Salvitore wants to, seems like they are building a world moreover than a game that we see today. The game needs to compliment both elements.

Amaranthar

Originally posted by Aganazer

Originally posted by Axehilt

When you say "forget making a game, make a world", the inherently means sacrificing fun for the sake of world coherency.  Which directly translates to the overall game being less fun when making a game isn't the primary focus. Nearly all games (certainly all MMORPGs) make some concessions to fitting a fiction, but if you give too much strength to those concessions you let all the fun gameplay fizzle out of a product.

Describing anything as "fun" whether it be a "game" or a "world" isn't really saying anything. You're assuming that "game=fun" and "world=not fun". I can think of numerous examples of games that successfully sacraficed some of the "game" to create a better "world" that I preferred. Simulation can be very rewarding even if its not the "YEEEHAAAAW! ZOMG Did you see that!?" type of fun.

I agree that we should never "forget making a game", but that doesn't mean we should "forget making a world" as well. It seems to me that it would be very difficult to develop a game then try to make it into more of a world. I may prefer the approach of making a world then turning it into a great game.

I think people want a home (by that I don't neccessarily mean housing, but its a good start). Its difficult to call something home if its too game'y. IMO it would need to have some very deep rooted elements of a world simulation.

Aganazer, agxactly!

For the record, when I said "forget making a game", I meant forget all the learned knowledge of making a Single Player game ala WoW/EQ clone. An MMORPG is not a Single Player Game.

"I think people want a home (by that I don't neccessarily mean housing, but its a good start). Its difficult to call something home if its too game'y."

This is critical, in my opinion.

Nadia

Originally posted by Nethermancer

Trailer looks good lol........combat is a little to flashy for my taste....but thats just pure opinion.

this what Schilling described the RPG as

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/03/07/kingdoms-of-amalur-reckoning-preview/

we're taking God of War and marrying it with Oblivion

Sovrath

Originally posted by Nethermancer

Trailer looks good lol........combat is a little to flashy for my taste....but thats just pure opinion.

I share your opinion, but will buy it anyways.

I'm sure it will be fun or even a nice diversion and, I mean "go sox". Thank you Mr. Schilling for helping bring them back! 

Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

"any investment is going to seem costly because you're not going to make your money back!"

Here again, you are making an assumption. And we keep going back and forth here. No one has done a good job of making a game like this since UO (and UO was crippled by wide open PvP as well as being old and at the beginning before amny gamers knew about MMORPGs). Eve isn't a full world, it's a Space Sim. So there's not much to go on here to come to your conclusion. And your reply to this is always "that's because it won't work". But there's no evidence of that. All the while, players keep saying they want "something more".

For how long do gamers have to not buy the new releases in droves? For how long do gamers have to say the same thing, "I want something more" and "I'm bored with this"?

Again, if we're talking a game which is a game first and a world second then I agree that there's potential for a more freeform MMORPG.  By no means do I think classic themepark design is the only valid type of game.  It's just when we try to put "world first" that too many decisions get made in favor of world design over gameplay.

Games struggle to be fun games as it stands -- without a focus on fun gameplay in the first place they really don't stand a chance.

waynejr2

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

 Where, my antagonistic friend and debater of all things MMORPG, did I ever say that fun wasn't part of the equation? 

And yes, this is "first and foremost". To do this, MMORPGs need to get away from the wild growth in power we see today because that separates players. MMORPGs need to get away from zoning players through it. I know there's a problem that comes with that in player numbers gathering too much in one area. That should eb fixable by a combination of factors, and it seems to me that the game can actually give players reasons' to "be small"...to an extent. Enough of an extent to cause players to want to separate and not cluster. These mechanics can come in the social sphere through resource availability, land requirements, etc.

In a great "Sandbox World", everything should affect everything else, just as in real life. That's a big part of the simulation. And a well designed game can use that to fix problems in a natural seeming way.

But nowhere do I expect that even a Sandbox World Simulation shouldn't be fun and exciting.

And I know such a product is more costly to make than a Themepark. That is, after all, why we had Themeparks in the first place. But the time has come for the change, the expansion into new territory (that's actually old, but undeveloped).

When you say "forget making a game, make a world", the inherently means sacrificing fun for the sake of world coherency.  Which directly translates to the overall game being less fun when making a game isn't the primary focus. Nearly all games (certainly all MMORPGs) make some concessions to fitting a fiction, but if you give too much strength to those concessions you let all the fun gameplay fizzle out of a product.

Zones make sense for the majority of progression-based games.  RPGs are, at their heart, progression-based games.  You invest time, you're stronger/better/richer.  As you become stronger, if the problems you're solving don't also become stronger (which translates to higher level mobs) they cease to be problems -- and without interesting problems to solve, games aren't fun.

The cost is sort of a two-fold issue of (A) you have to do the (expensive) R&D legwork of making a fun sandbox (because nobody else has), and (B) unless you make your game entertaining to lots of people, any investment is going to seem costly because you're not going to make your money back!

"When you say "forget making a game, make a world", the inherently means sacrificing fun for the sake of world coherency."

See Axe, this is your assumption. But it's wrong. I know where you get it from, I've seen all those posts too. But "just a world to live in" isn't what we need, we need one that you can do that...plus has loads of fun features.

I've said before, you can have almost everything that WoW has, and still make it a Sandbox Worldly game. But that, of course, would be like making WoW at what it cost, plus adding all the code, extra world space, and everything else needed on top of that. But something between would also work. There's lots of room for give and take.

"any investment is going to seem costly because you're not going to make your money back!"

Here again, you are making an assumption. And we keep going back and forth here. No one has done a good job of making a game like this since UO (and UO was crippled by wide open PvP as well as being old and at the beginning before amny gamers knew about MMORPGs). Eve isn't a full world, it's a Space Sim. So there's not much to go on here to come to your conclusion. And your reply to this is always "that's because it won't work". But there's no evidence of that. All the while, players keep saying they want "something more".

For how long do gamers have to not buy the new releases in droves? For how long do gamers have to say the same thing, "I want something more" and "I'm bored with this"?

 The problem is that any sandbox which is created and doesn't sell great you will defend your position by saying it wasn't a good job. 

Amaranthar

Originally posted by waynejr2

Originally posted by Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

 Where, my antagonistic friend and debater of all things MMORPG, did I ever say that fun wasn't part of the equation? 

And yes, this is "first and foremost". To do this, MMORPGs need to get away from the wild growth in power we see today because that separates players. MMORPGs need to get away from zoning players through it. I know there's a problem that comes with that in player numbers gathering too much in one area. That should eb fixable by a combination of factors, and it seems to me that the game can actually give players reasons' to "be small"...to an extent. Enough of an extent to cause players to want to separate and not cluster. These mechanics can come in the social sphere through resource availability, land requirements, etc.

In a great "Sandbox World", everything should affect everything else, just as in real life. That's a big part of the simulation. And a well designed game can use that to fix problems in a natural seeming way.

But nowhere do I expect that even a Sandbox World Simulation shouldn't be fun and exciting.

And I know such a product is more costly to make than a Themepark. That is, after all, why we had Themeparks in the first place. But the time has come for the change, the expansion into new territory (that's actually old, but undeveloped).

When you say "forget making a game, make a world", the inherently means sacrificing fun for the sake of world coherency.  Which directly translates to the overall game being less fun when making a game isn't the primary focus. Nearly all games (certainly all MMORPGs) make some concessions to fitting a fiction, but if you give too much strength to those concessions you let all the fun gameplay fizzle out of a product.

Zones make sense for the majority of progression-based games.  RPGs are, at their heart, progression-based games.  You invest time, you're stronger/better/richer.  As you become stronger, if the problems you're solving don't also become stronger (which translates to higher level mobs) they cease to be problems -- and without interesting problems to solve, games aren't fun.

The cost is sort of a two-fold issue of (A) you have to do the (expensive) R&D legwork of making a fun sandbox (because nobody else has), and (B) unless you make your game entertaining to lots of people, any investment is going to seem costly because you're not going to make your money back!

"When you say "forget making a game, make a world", the inherently means sacrificing fun for the sake of world coherency."

See Axe, this is your assumption. But it's wrong. I know where you get it from, I've seen all those posts too. But "just a world to live in" isn't what we need, we need one that you can do that...plus has loads of fun features.

I've said before, you can have almost everything that WoW has, and still make it a Sandbox Worldly game. But that, of course, would be like making WoW at what it cost, plus adding all the code, extra world space, and everything else needed on top of that. But something between would also work. There's lots of room for give and take.

"any investment is going to seem costly because you're not going to make your money back!"

Here again, you are making an assumption. And we keep going back and forth here. No one has done a good job of making a game like this since UO (and UO was crippled by wide open PvP as well as being old and at the beginning before amny gamers knew about MMORPGs). Eve isn't a full world, it's a Space Sim. So there's not much to go on here to come to your conclusion. And your reply to this is always "that's because it won't work". But there's no evidence of that. All the while, players keep saying they want "something more".

For how long do gamers have to not buy the new releases in droves? For how long do gamers have to say the same thing, "I want something more" and "I'm bored with this"?

 The problem is that any sandbox which is created and doesn't sell great you will defend your position by saying it wasn't a good job. 

Got an example? Or are you speculating based on the fact that I'm right in the first place?

Amaranthar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Amaranthar

"any investment is going to seem costly because you're not going to make your money back!"

Here again, you are making an assumption. And we keep going back and forth here. No one has done a good job of making a game like this since UO (and UO was crippled by wide open PvP as well as being old and at the beginning before amny gamers knew about MMORPGs). Eve isn't a full world, it's a Space Sim. So there's not much to go on here to come to your conclusion. And your reply to this is always "that's because it won't work". But there's no evidence of that. All the while, players keep saying they want "something more".

For how long do gamers have to not buy the new releases in droves? For how long do gamers have to say the same thing, "I want something more" and "I'm bored with this"?

Again, if we're talking a game which is a game first and a world second then I agree that there's potential for a more freeform MMORPG.  By no means do I think classic themepark design is the only valid type of game.  It's just when we try to put "world first" that too many decisions get made in favor of world design over gameplay.

Games struggle to be fun games as it stands -- without a focus on fun gameplay in the first place they really don't stand a chance.

Well, this is sort of a here and there thing. I do think you have to design the "worldly" first, then add the game on top of that. But when designing the world, I think you always have to have the game elements in mind. In other words, sometimes you have to change that world to suit what you are going to do with the game.

An example...You need a newbie zone with lots to do, designed to teach the mechanics to new players, and it has to always be there and available to new players. Some sort of fixed content is required here. That content may appear less fixed than it is, but it's still a requirement. So even though, assuming that a game is going as far to "realism" as what I've posted in the past with wandering MOBs and such, this is a place that the game needs to break from "total realism". But as I've also said many times, we don't expect "total realism", we expect "more realism".

With that same example, lets suppose that the game doesn't have the funding to go "all out". It may have to add even more "fixed" content, and the design here would need to do so while trying to hide it in the world's "realism".

It all gets to be by degrees. The more worldly the better, but as you say (and I never argued), you also have to have the fun. The best thing about it is that the worldly part can add loads of fun to existing fun, if you follow. Substitute/add "interesting" and "curious" in here too.