Did you research that while making a fedex inflight delivery or something?
50+ full length novels worth of written dialogue put into narrated storyline is not a fedex quest. There is no possible way you can argue that without looking willingly ignorant, or like a basement troll.
If this was a singleplayer game, things like that would matter. This is a MMORPG where story - although important - is the thing you do when you are not participating in the real game that involves scores of players participating in either helping you achieve something or in certain areas potentially hindering your goals (hence the Massive Multiplayer part of MMORPG).
If the best elements in a MMORPG can be played as essentially a singleplayer game then I think the point is rather lost. I am NOT saying that is the case with SW:TOR, but it's a valid trepidation with the hype being focused on singleplayer elements such as interactive companions, voice-over, questlines, and an engaging story.
That's your idea of a real game, mine and others is about the story and it being interactive and all of the other social / roleplay tools the developers put in these games. Whether people play it solo, duo or in groups is besides the point, if they enjoy it, then the game will have all the longevity it needs to keep them satisfied over the years. Just like the hardcore grind and raid games keep putting out content for their player base, bioware will do the same for us casuals and story fanatics. We're the ones who are tired of the genre being dominated by your type of games, can't see why you guys are so dead set against us having at least one or two that cater exclusively to us.
Also crosses fingers that Anet will keep to their casual roots and not cave in to the hardcore crowd like most games do that claim to be casual friendly.
Did you research that while making a fedex inflight delivery or something?
50+ full length novels worth of written dialogue put into narrated storyline is not a fedex quest. There is no possible way you can argue that without looking willingly ignorant, or like a basement troll.
If this was a singleplayer game, things like that would matter. This is a MMORPG where story - although important - is the thing you do when you are not participating in the real game that involves scores of players participating in either helping you achieve something or in certain areas potentially hindering your goals (hence the Massive Multiplayer part of MMORPG).
If the best elements in a MMORPG can be played as essentially a singleplayer game then I think the point is rather lost. I am NOT saying that is the case with SW:TOR, but it's a valid trepidation with the hype being focused on singleplayer elements such as interactive companions, voice-over, questlines, and an engaging story.
That's your idea of a real game, mine and others is about the story and it being interactive and all of the other social / roleplay tools the developers put in these games. Whether people play it solo, duo or in groups is besides the point, if they enjoy it, then the game will have all the longevity it needs to keep them satisfied over the years. Just like the hardcore grind and raid games keep putting out content for their player base, bioware will do the same for us casuals and story fanatics. We're the ones who are tired of the genre being dominated by your type of games, can't see why you guys are so dead set against us having at least one or two that cater exclusively to us.
Also crosses fingers that Anet will keep to their casual roots and not cave in to the hardcore crowd like most games do that claim to be casual friendly.
A friggin men. I refuse to play a game where the idea is "Put up with a long boring grind so that you can get to endgame and REALLY have fun." No thanks. If it isn't fun from the get go it no longer receives my money. Hence why I rarely play MMOs. The last two I tried were WOW and STO and I never made it to endgame on either because the grinding was SO boring. I'd rather watch paint dry.
Playing: GW2 Waiting on: TESO Next Flop: Planetside 2 Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
Originally posted by Vorthanion That's your idea of a real game, mine and others is about the story and it being interactive and all of the other social / roleplay tools the developers put in these games. Whether people play it solo, duo or in groups is besides the point, if they enjoy it, then the game will have all the longevity it needs to keep them satisfied over the years. Just like the hardcore grind and raid games keep putting out content for their player base, bioware will do the same for us casuals and story fanatics. We're the ones who are tired of the genre being dominated by your type of games, can't see why you guys are so dead set against us having at least one or two that cater exclusively to us.
Also crosses fingers that Anet will keep to their casual roots and not cave in to the hardcore crowd like most games do that claim to be casual friendly.
First and foremost: Fair enough.
Second: This is a themepark game (like WoW), the developers have said this. This means there are no roleplaying elements per se, it's a closed and static game world without player interaction outside of the singleplayer sphere (you decide which quests your character completes and that's it, it will have no influence outside of your singleplayer experience).
Third: I would LOVE a mmoRPG to be released. A world where NPCs were secondary to the great story unfolding uniquely on each Server/Realm due to the players participating in making it so with towns, wars, diplomacy, you name it. Star Wars: Galaxies was for a decent part such a game, Star Wars: The Old Republic has no such aspirations, the aspiration is to compete with WoW using their formula backed up by a stronger and longer lived IP for the non-gamers and the BioWare brand for the gamers.
Fourth: I will play TOR like I have played all other triple A titles to ever come out. Every game deserves a try and if it entertains me for three months, it was (in my view) totally worth the money.
Second: This is a themepark game (like WoW), the developers have said this. This means there are no roleplaying elements per se, it's a closed and static game world without player interaction outside of the singleplayer sphere (you decide which quests your character completes and that's it, it will have no influence outside of your singleplayer experience).
Third: I would LOVE a mmoRPG to be released. A world where NPCs were secondary to the great story unfolding uniquely on each Server/Realm due to the players participating in making it so with towns, wars, diplomacy, you name it. Star Wars: Galaxies was for a decent part such a game, Star Wars: The Old Republic has no such aspirations, the aspiration is to compete with WoW using their formula backed up by a stronger and longer lived IP for the non-gamers and the BioWare brand for the gamers.
I disagree with you on those two points.
I disagree on the argument that themepark MMORPG supposedly have no roleplaying elements, which I find nonsense. I have witnessed and experienced truly awesome roleplaying and roleplay-based events in MMO's like GW, LotrO and AoC that often was even better and richer than what I encountered in sandbox style MMO's like SWG.
Also, I disagree on the argument that sandbox MMO's or sandbox gameplay aspects can fill in the RPG in MMORPG. Maybe that's the case in the eyes of hardcore sandbox lovers, but in fact computer RPG's don't even have the aspect of many players participating in making towns, wars, diplomacy, etc; no, what computer RPG's are known for is character development, and going on all kinds of quests and missions and exploring the ingame world while the main story or theme slowly unfolds. Those are the core defining aspects that you find in computer based RPG's, from the Japanese RPG's to Bard's Tale to Baldur's Gate.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Second: This is a themepark game (like WoW), the developers have said this. This means there are no roleplaying elements per se, it's a closed and static game world without player interaction outside of the singleplayer sphere (you decide which quests your character completes and that's it, it will have no influence outside of your singleplayer experience).
Third: I would LOVE a mmoRPG to be released. A world where NPCs were secondary to the great story unfolding uniquely on each Server/Realm due to the players participating in making it so with towns, wars, diplomacy, you name it. Star Wars: Galaxies was for a decent part such a game, Star Wars: The Old Republic has no such aspirations, the aspiration is to compete with WoW using their formula backed up by a stronger and longer lived IP for the non-gamers and the BioWare brand for the gamers.
I disagree with you on those two points.
I disagree on the argument that themepark MMORPG supposedly have no roleplaying elements, which I find nonsense. I have witnessed and experienced truly awesome roleplaying and roleplay-based events in MMO's like GW, LotrO and AoC that often was even better and richer than what I encountered in sandbox style MMO's like SWG.
Also, I disagree on the argument that sandbox MMO's or sandbox gameplay aspects can fill in the RPG in MMORPG. Maybe that's the case in the eyes of hardcore sandbox lovers, but in fact computer RPG's don't even have the aspect of many players participating in making towns, wars, diplomacy, etc; no, what computer RPG's are known for is character development, and going on all kinds of quests and missions and exploring the ingame world while the main story or theme slowly unfolds. Those are the core defining aspects that you find in computer based RPG's, from the Japanese RPG's to Bard's Tale to Baldur's Gate.
With first thing I do agree. In vanilla WoW (also themepark after all) I played on RP server and somehow it happened that there was a lot of RP going on. Same experience from LotRO.
With argument that thempark can fill in the RPG as well as sandbox I don't really agree (I mean real sandbox game, not so trendy crap being called sandbox that is being released last few years). Best RPG is not just about character development but world development too. You provided example of Baldur's Gate, ok. cRPG that is shifting heavily towards common adventure game (just like most themeparks do) that these days are commonly mistaken for RPG too. Just look at Daggerfall and what it offered to players. THAT was cRPG. Also examples given by you are all just examples of how world development in RPG game can be handled and true, no themepark has a single sign of those features. Sandbox games? Not much but definitely more than themeparks.
With argument that thempark can fill in the RPG as well as sandbox I don't really agree (I mean real sandbox game, not so trendy crap being called sandbox that is being released last few years). Best RPG is not just about character development but world development too. You provided example of Baldur's Gate, ok. cRPG that is shifting heavily towards common adventure game (just like most themeparks do) that these days are commonly mistaken for RPG too. Just look at Daggerfall and what it offered to players. THAT was cRPG. Also examples given by you are all just examples of how world development in RPG game can be handled and true, no themepark has a single sign of those features. Sandbox games? Not much but definitely more than themeparks.
Maybe what I was trying to show wasn't clearly explained enough: what I was saying was that the elements that some people, usually hardcore sandbox fans, are saying is 'true RPG' are imo merely wishful thinking and a projection of their own wishes and needs for an RPG, or MMORPG. However, if you look at what was the core features and mechanics of singleplayer computer RPG's, of which MMORPG's are an exponent, then what you see that's the main theme and common ground is that computer RPG's in the past 20-30 years for the vast majority of them was about dungeon crawling, progressing your character with more and stronger spells and skills and gears, and going on adventure, exploring the world, doing all kinds of quests and missions while the world and main story slowly unfolded. That was the core mechanics and themes that you saw in games in the (computer) RPG genre.
I'm not saying that MMORPG's can't or shouldn't be more, but trying to make that argument by saying that singleplayer RPG's as a genre in the past decennia was all about sandbox elements is a gross misrepresentation and ignoring of what computer RPG's had and were in those years, or only looking at a very small fraction of the mass of computer RPG's that were around and ignoring all the rest.
What I saw lacking that singleplayer RPG's had, and which is something that apparently the devs of TSW, GW2 and SWTOR in their statements agreed upon, was that the storytelling aspect that RPG's - computer as well as PnP RPG's - had, had gotten lost in the process. Which those devs each in their own way intends to return in their games.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
With argument that thempark can fill in the RPG as well as sandbox I don't really agree (I mean real sandbox game, not so trendy crap being called sandbox that is being released last few years). Best RPG is not just about character development but world development too. You provided example of Baldur's Gate, ok. cRPG that is shifting heavily towards common adventure game (just like most themeparks do) that these days are commonly mistaken for RPG too. Just look at Daggerfall and what it offered to players. THAT was cRPG. Also examples given by you are all just examples of how world development in RPG game can be handled and true, no themepark has a single sign of those features. Sandbox games? Not much but definitely more than themeparks.
Maybe what I was trying to show wasn't clearly explained enough: what I was saying was that the elements that some people, usually hardcore sandbox fans, are saying is 'true RPG' are imo merely wishful thinking and a projection of their own wishes and needs for an RPG, or MMORPG. However, if you look at what was the core features and mechanics of singleplayer computer RPG's, of which MMORPG's are an exponent, then what you see that's the main theme and common ground is that computer RPG's in the past 20-30 years for the vast majority of them was about dungeon crawling, progressing your character with more and stronger spells and skills and gears, and going on adventure, exploring the world, doing all kinds of quests and missions while the world and main story slowly unfolded. That was the core mechanics and themes that you saw in games in the (computer) RPG genre.
I'm not saying that MMORPG's can't or shouldn't be more, but trying to make that argument by saying that singleplayer RPG's as a genre in the past decennia was all about sandbox elements is a gross misrepresentation and ignoring of what computer RPG's had and were in those years, or only looking at a very small fraction of the mass of computer RPG's that were around and ignoring all the rest.
What I saw lacking that singleplayer RPG's had, and which is something that apparently the devs of TSW, GW2 and SWTOR in their statements agreed upon, was that the storytelling aspect that RPG's - computer as well as PnP RPG's - had, had gotten lost in the process. Which those devs each in their own way intends to return in their games.
I agree with the RPG and character progression. To me, RPG games are all about taking a role as a player in a pre-generated game world with stories created for you to take part in. And in BW's and TOR's case, actually having a choice that can change your development path. The path the adventure takes is irrelevent to the fact that you are taking on a role and progressing both your character and the story or side stories.
Sandbox games are, or should be, world simulations that each player can directly effect and change based on game features designed to use by the devs. This can also be fun in a very different way. But it is no longer a RPG in any way. It becomes a SIM. So should the name for sandbox games be changed to MMOSIMS? IMO if there is no story, nothing to the world but player politics, then there is no RPG.
So for me and others that have been posting about TOR, we can see the RPG put back into the MMO. Not as a SPG, but as a MMO. I will be engrossed in my main's story as well as my alts. I will be playing the game both as a personal RPG story and a multiplayer RPG with the many players that will be in the world around me. I won't need to build a guild city or destroy another guild over and over to have fun in a MMO. I can and will interact just fine in a Themepark MMORPG. Especially one that will have real stories that can be shared with others and talked about because your character acts different even in group quests.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them? R.A.Salvatore
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick I disagree with you on those two points. I disagree on the argument that themepark MMORPG supposedly have no roleplaying elements, which I find nonsense. I have witnessed and experienced truly awesome roleplaying and roleplay-based events in MMO's like GW, LotrO and AoC that often was even better and richer than what I encountered in sandbox style MMO's like SWG. Also, I disagree on the argument that sandbox MMO's or sandbox gameplay aspects can fill in the RPG in MMORPG. Maybe that's the case in the eyes of hardcore sandbox lovers, but in fact computer RPG's don't even have the aspect of many players participating in making towns, wars, diplomacy, etc; no, what computer RPG's are known for is character development, and going on all kinds of quests and missions and exploring the ingame world while the main story or theme slowly unfolds. Those are the core defining aspects that you find in computer based RPG's, from the Japanese RPG's to Bard's Tale to Baldur's Gate.
It's fine you disagree. If you rigidly stick with the original formula of what was called a computer roleplaying game years ago then you are ofcourse right. Today we have games like the works of Bethesda that in my view much more represent what roleplaying games can be.
I have been an avid roleplayer for more than 20 years and to me the development of story, world and character motivation in relation to that changing world is much more relevant than +2 Strength. I don't think that's something we can agree on so I'm not going to push that point anymore.
In my experience roleplaying in Themepark games have been successful DESPITE the game not because of the game. In these kind of games (with no player interaction in the world outside of the roleplaying elements you describe with numeric increases in arbitrary "abilities") the game simply functions as a graphical user interface for in-character chats. In essence, the game is irrelevant, the same exchange could have been achieved in any chatroom service on the internet.
The sandbox elements doesn't have to be extreme, in Vanguard you could build a town. In Age of conan you could build a keep. It doesn't have to be Ryzom for something to be present that the players can enjoy and call their own creation and create it as a backdrop for countless stories that are not locked down to the same environment for years and years.
It's fine you disagree. If you rigidly stick with the original formula of what was called a computer roleplaying game years ago then you are ofcourse right. Today we have games like the works of Bethesda that in my view much more represent what roleplaying games can be.
If Bethesda games are the type of RPG's that you like, that's fine. However, it isn't what defined computer RPG's for the past decennia and that's what I was saying. Besides, not even RPG's like Oblivion and Morrowing have the typical multiplayer aspects that sandbox fans expect in their sandbox games, like player towns, PvP castle sieges and territory control or a thriving, player crafting based economy. Lijnking that to be RPG as seen in singleplayer RPG's or PnP RPG's is just the wrong comparison to make and not logical.
That's all that I was trying to say, I wasn't making any judgement calls about sandbox features or sandbox MMO's or such.
I have been an avid roleplayer for more than 20 years and to me the development of story, world and character motivation in relation to that changing world is much more relevant than +2 Strength. I don't think that's something we can agree on so I'm not going to push that point anymore.
All those points have nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, see above.
In my experience roleplaying in Themepark games have been successful DESPITE the game not because of the game. In these kind of games (with no player interaction in the world outside of the roleplaying elements you describe with numeric increases in arbitrary "abilities") the game simply functions as a graphical user interface for in-character chats. In essence, the game is irrelevant, the same exchange could have been achieved in any chatroom service on the internet.
The sandbox elements doesn't have to be extreme, in Vanguard you could build a town. In Age of conan you could build a keep. It doesn't have to be Ryzom for something to be present that the players can enjoy and call their own creation and create it as a backdrop for countless stories that are not locked down to the same environment for years and years.
Of course the more tools players get, the more options roleplayers can use. However, after spending some time on all kinds of RP servers in various MMO's, I'm starting to think that roleplayers in themepark MMO's are the true roleplayers, because they manage to get into character, all kinds of character types, not just pretty much their own personality transplanted into a game world setting, and be more creative in doing all kinds of events and such, in much the same way as PnP roleplayers need little tools to envision the world, scenes and setting that their characters were moving around in.
A good example is EVE: the fact that it's a sandbox game with a lot of 'living world' features didn't automatically increase the percentage of 'roleplaying' players and guilds in it. In fact, most players aren't even roleplaying which when asked they'd confirm, they're just playing the game with the features it has to offer, there's no 'roleplay acting', additional creativity or imagination required for that.
But, I realise we're going offtrack, so I'm going to leave it at this
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Originally posted by MMO.Maverick But, I realise we're going offtrack, so I'm going to leave it at this
From my experiences in CoX, WoW, LotRO, and EQ2 I will say that "roleplaying" in those arenas fall into the following categories:
- Angsty stories about fears, bad memories, traumas, etc. - Romance stories about love, relationships, or sex.
My best roleplaying experience have been in Age of Conan because the game offered a backdrop in the form of building a keep. That offered stories where crafters had discussions about how to build this or that, what materials they preferred, tools, what the political situation was like in the areas where materials could be shipped from, more military minded guild members discussed the various martial merits of the buildings, there were ofcourse stories of the kind outlined above, but there was a context that everybody contributed to in greater or smaller ways. It gave a huge sense of belonging and participation that offered more than the Unholy Duality of Angst/Romance that is so prevalent in static games.
From my experiences in CoX, WoW, LotRO, and EQ2 I will say that "roleplaying" in those arenas fall into the following categories:
- Angsty stories about fears, bad memories, traumas, etc.
- Romance stories about love, relationships, or sex.
I guess I've been lucky, the RP communities and groups I encountered in the games I played were pretty good, with from what I saw a lot more diversity and variety in their activities than the things you described. Hence why I said that creativity seemed to play a larger role in the themepark MMO's I played in. I think what people mistake for 'roleplay' is actually more about 'game immersion': most aren't looking for deeper 'roleplay', as in also the possibility of acting and playing characters that can be in complete contrast of their own personality, but what they're looking for is deepened 'game immersion' and for sandbox players that means a world they can immerse themselves in as if it's a second alternate daily life with everything that comes with it.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Yes, immersion has always been part of the roleplaying atmosphere for me. If the sense you get is people play-acting rather than participating in an environment they include in their character's development it becomes slightly forced to me. I don't think I have ever encountered roleplaying disassociated from immersion as you describe it.
This thread is totally pointless...just because the hype for a game is HUGE doesnt mean it will be addictive lol. In fact HUGE hypre is will likely lead to HUGE dissapointment. I predict many upset about TOR overall about 6 months from now.
Personally I wouldn't touch TOR will a 10 foot pole :-/
This thread is totally pointless...just because the hype for a game is HUGE doesnt mean it will be addictive lol. In fact HUGE hypre is will likely lead to HUGE dissapointment. I predict many upset about TOR overall about 6 months from now.
Personally I wouldn't touch TOR will a 10 foot pole :-/
Same thing can be said about GW 2, Tera, and all other upcoming MMOs.
Comments
I beta'd Aion as well and it wasn't even a close comparison. I hated it 30 minutes in and quit the beta and didn't buy the game.
That's your idea of a real game, mine and others is about the story and it being interactive and all of the other social / roleplay tools the developers put in these games. Whether people play it solo, duo or in groups is besides the point, if they enjoy it, then the game will have all the longevity it needs to keep them satisfied over the years. Just like the hardcore grind and raid games keep putting out content for their player base, bioware will do the same for us casuals and story fanatics. We're the ones who are tired of the genre being dominated by your type of games, can't see why you guys are so dead set against us having at least one or two that cater exclusively to us.
Also crosses fingers that Anet will keep to their casual roots and not cave in to the hardcore crowd like most games do that claim to be casual friendly.
A friggin men. I refuse to play a game where the idea is "Put up with a long boring grind so that you can get to endgame and REALLY have fun." No thanks. If it isn't fun from the get go it no longer receives my money. Hence why I rarely play MMOs. The last two I tried were WOW and STO and I never made it to endgame on either because the grinding was SO boring. I'd rather watch paint dry.
Currently Playing: World of Warcraft
I voted NO!
If I wanted more of the same thing I would go back to WoW or Rift. I dont intend on buying a game that has all potatoes and no meat.
Look me up in the near future where I'll be having tons of fun doing something "ORIGINAL and INNOVATIVE" in GW2!
Everything you need to know about Elder Scrolls Online
Playing: GW2
Waiting on: TESO
Next Flop: Planetside 2
Best MMO of all time: Asheron's Call - The first company to recreate AC will be the next greatest MMO.
TOR is going to be addictive in short term IMO.
But voted 'No' cuz the poll is very bad option wise.
SexuaLobster's Grease Portal
Second: This is a themepark game (like WoW), the developers have said this. This means there are no roleplaying elements per se, it's a closed and static game world without player interaction outside of the singleplayer sphere (you decide which quests your character completes and that's it, it will have no influence outside of your singleplayer experience).
Third: I would LOVE a mmoRPG to be released. A world where NPCs were secondary to the great story unfolding uniquely on each Server/Realm due to the players participating in making it so with towns, wars, diplomacy, you name it. Star Wars: Galaxies was for a decent part such a game, Star Wars: The Old Republic has no such aspirations, the aspiration is to compete with WoW using their formula backed up by a stronger and longer lived IP for the non-gamers and the BioWare brand for the gamers.
Fourth: I will play TOR like I have played all other triple A titles to ever come out. Every game deserves a try and if it entertains me for three months, it was (in my view) totally worth the money.
I disagree with you on those two points.
I disagree on the argument that themepark MMORPG supposedly have no roleplaying elements, which I find nonsense. I have witnessed and experienced truly awesome roleplaying and roleplay-based events in MMO's like GW, LotrO and AoC that often was even better and richer than what I encountered in sandbox style MMO's like SWG.
Also, I disagree on the argument that sandbox MMO's or sandbox gameplay aspects can fill in the RPG in MMORPG. Maybe that's the case in the eyes of hardcore sandbox lovers, but in fact computer RPG's don't even have the aspect of many players participating in making towns, wars, diplomacy, etc; no, what computer RPG's are known for is character development, and going on all kinds of quests and missions and exploring the ingame world while the main story or theme slowly unfolds. Those are the core defining aspects that you find in computer based RPG's, from the Japanese RPG's to Bard's Tale to Baldur's Gate.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
With first thing I do agree. In vanilla WoW (also themepark after all) I played on RP server and somehow it happened that there was a lot of RP going on. Same experience from LotRO.
With argument that thempark can fill in the RPG as well as sandbox I don't really agree (I mean real sandbox game, not so trendy crap being called sandbox that is being released last few years). Best RPG is not just about character development but world development too. You provided example of Baldur's Gate, ok. cRPG that is shifting heavily towards common adventure game (just like most themeparks do) that these days are commonly mistaken for RPG too. Just look at Daggerfall and what it offered to players. THAT was cRPG. Also examples given by you are all just examples of how world development in RPG game can be handled and true, no themepark has a single sign of those features. Sandbox games? Not much but definitely more than themeparks.
Maybe what I was trying to show wasn't clearly explained enough: what I was saying was that the elements that some people, usually hardcore sandbox fans, are saying is 'true RPG' are imo merely wishful thinking and a projection of their own wishes and needs for an RPG, or MMORPG. However, if you look at what was the core features and mechanics of singleplayer computer RPG's, of which MMORPG's are an exponent, then what you see that's the main theme and common ground is that computer RPG's in the past 20-30 years for the vast majority of them was about dungeon crawling, progressing your character with more and stronger spells and skills and gears, and going on adventure, exploring the world, doing all kinds of quests and missions while the world and main story slowly unfolded. That was the core mechanics and themes that you saw in games in the (computer) RPG genre.
I'm not saying that MMORPG's can't or shouldn't be more, but trying to make that argument by saying that singleplayer RPG's as a genre in the past decennia was all about sandbox elements is a gross misrepresentation and ignoring of what computer RPG's had and were in those years, or only looking at a very small fraction of the mass of computer RPG's that were around and ignoring all the rest.
What I saw lacking that singleplayer RPG's had, and which is something that apparently the devs of TSW, GW2 and SWTOR in their statements agreed upon, was that the storytelling aspect that RPG's - computer as well as PnP RPG's - had, had gotten lost in the process. Which those devs each in their own way intends to return in their games.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
I agree with the RPG and character progression. To me, RPG games are all about taking a role as a player in a pre-generated game world with stories created for you to take part in. And in BW's and TOR's case, actually having a choice that can change your development path. The path the adventure takes is irrelevent to the fact that you are taking on a role and progressing both your character and the story or side stories.
Sandbox games are, or should be, world simulations that each player can directly effect and change based on game features designed to use by the devs. This can also be fun in a very different way. But it is no longer a RPG in any way. It becomes a SIM. So should the name for sandbox games be changed to MMOSIMS? IMO if there is no story, nothing to the world but player politics, then there is no RPG.
So for me and others that have been posting about TOR, we can see the RPG put back into the MMO. Not as a SPG, but as a MMO. I will be engrossed in my main's story as well as my alts. I will be playing the game both as a personal RPG story and a multiplayer RPG with the many players that will be in the world around me. I won't need to build a guild city or destroy another guild over and over to have fun in a MMO. I can and will interact just fine in a Themepark MMORPG. Especially one that will have real stories that can be shared with others and talked about because your character acts different even in group quests.
How many people long for that "past, simpler, and better world," I wonder, without ever recognizing the truth that perhaps it was they who were simpler and better, and not the world about them?
R.A.Salvatore
I have been an avid roleplayer for more than 20 years and to me the development of story, world and character motivation in relation to that changing world is much more relevant than +2 Strength. I don't think that's something we can agree on so I'm not going to push that point anymore.
In my experience roleplaying in Themepark games have been successful DESPITE the game not because of the game. In these kind of games (with no player interaction in the world outside of the roleplaying elements you describe with numeric increases in arbitrary "abilities") the game simply functions as a graphical user interface for in-character chats. In essence, the game is irrelevant, the same exchange could have been achieved in any chatroom service on the internet.
The sandbox elements doesn't have to be extreme, in Vanguard you could build a town. In Age of conan you could build a keep. It doesn't have to be Ryzom for something to be present that the players can enjoy and call their own creation and create it as a backdrop for countless stories that are not locked down to the same environment for years and years.
Of course the more tools players get, the more options roleplayers can use. However, after spending some time on all kinds of RP servers in various MMO's, I'm starting to think that roleplayers in themepark MMO's are the true roleplayers, because they manage to get into character, all kinds of character types, not just pretty much their own personality transplanted into a game world setting, and be more creative in doing all kinds of events and such, in much the same way as PnP roleplayers need little tools to envision the world, scenes and setting that their characters were moving around in.
A good example is EVE: the fact that it's a sandbox game with a lot of 'living world' features didn't automatically increase the percentage of 'roleplaying' players and guilds in it. In fact, most players aren't even roleplaying which when asked they'd confirm, they're just playing the game with the features it has to offer, there's no 'roleplay acting', additional creativity or imagination required for that.
But, I realise we're going offtrack, so I'm going to leave it at this
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
- Angsty stories about fears, bad memories, traumas, etc.
- Romance stories about love, relationships, or sex.
My best roleplaying experience have been in Age of Conan because the game offered a backdrop in the form of building a keep. That offered stories where crafters had discussions about how to build this or that, what materials they preferred, tools, what the political situation was like in the areas where materials could be shipped from, more military minded guild members discussed the various martial merits of the buildings, there were ofcourse stories of the kind outlined above, but there was a context that everybody contributed to in greater or smaller ways. It gave a huge sense of belonging and participation that offered more than the Unholy Duality of Angst/Romance that is so prevalent in static games.
I guess I've been lucky, the RP communities and groups I encountered in the games I played were pretty good, with from what I saw a lot more diversity and variety in their activities than the things you described. Hence why I said that creativity seemed to play a larger role in the themepark MMO's I played in. I think what people mistake for 'roleplay' is actually more about 'game immersion': most aren't looking for deeper 'roleplay', as in also the possibility of acting and playing characters that can be in complete contrast of their own personality, but what they're looking for is deepened 'game immersion' and for sandbox players that means a world they can immerse themselves in as if it's a second alternate daily life with everything that comes with it.
/offtopic
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Yes, immersion has always been part of the roleplaying atmosphere for me. If the sense you get is people play-acting rather than participating in an environment they include in their character's development it becomes slightly forced to me. I don't think I have ever encountered roleplaying disassociated from immersion as you describe it.
This thread is totally pointless...just because the hype for a game is HUGE doesnt mean it will be addictive lol. In fact HUGE hypre is will likely lead to HUGE dissapointment. I predict many upset about TOR overall about 6 months from now.
Personally I wouldn't touch TOR will a 10 foot pole :-/
"I play Tera for the gameplay"
We have absolutely no idea until we actually get to play the game after release. the hype will definately lead to disapointment.
The idea is to go into the game with no high expectations at all. Its how I tend to approach many games and mmos Iplay
Same thing can be said about GW 2, Tera, and all other upcoming MMOs.
Currently Playing: SSFIV AE, SFxTekken, SWTOR, WoW. Waiting for: GW2, Resident Evil 6.