Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Best Game Ever
killjoy0593
Member Posts: 15
All Right, Lets face it, TERA is an amazing game but it's definitely not everything we hope for in a TRUE MMO, What i wanna see is a game with a larger world than Vanguard but still has the seamless exploration, The combat system, Vanarch system, and graphics as amazing as TERA, One that streamlines resources so it's not so cpu intensive, an amazing lore, endless possibilities for races and classes, player housing, guild housing, territory ownership, flying mounts (cool looking ones of course) a decision path system like in starwars, maybe even multiple planets. it would also be cool if they would randomly pop new island out of the sea for players to discover and take over or even instead of a selective class system the player can learn anything and lay multiple classes.
When they finally make a game like that... i will wake up and praise the developers everyday.
Comments
In my opinion the best games are all about options. In Skyrim you can run around and do anything you want, you have many options on what you can do as far as questing, crafting, gathering, exploring and character building. I feel it's because of options that Skyrim is such a beloved game. There are many different ways to play that game.
On the other side of the spectrum you have a game like SW:TOR (that I enjoyed playing to level 50). In that game your options are fairly limited. You have questing/character progression, instanced group PVE, instanced group PVP, daily quest grinding, and RP to a lesser extent. The crafting game is mostly pointless (which makes resource gathering pointless), revisiting lower level planets is pointless, the space game is mostly pointless, etc... To a large degree it's the limited options on what there is to do in that game that drives players away after a while.
If you want to have a successful game you have to create options for the players. People are different, and what's fun for some may not be so for others. A game that caters to as many of these different kinds of players as possible would be a huge hit. I know for me, the combat has to be smooth, mostly balanced, and servicable. I don't need the most "innovative" combat system. If combat is your only selling point then you most likely have a very shallow game.
In short, the Sandbox vs Themepark discussion.
It's all personal preference. However, some people like being carried through the content for some time and released to do what they want when they see all they need to see.
A very wise statement. I agree 100%.
Doesn't have to be.
Just take one or more systems you liked from a particular game. It doesn't even have to be a game you liked.
For example, I hear that Tera has an amazing combat system.
Ryzom has one of the best crafting systems I've ever seen
Rappelz has a great pet system.
Anarchy Online has one of the best gear/equip systems ever.
Think of these things that worked for you and imagine a game that capitalized on all the best stuff there is out there.
You don't even have to come up with anything terribly new to have a killer game.
The problem with a pure themepark is what you just said. Once you're done being carried through the themepark if there are no options to do other things the game gets stale and you end up quitting.
The danger of a pure sandbox is the lack of guided content that some people can't deal without. It's the "there's nothing to do" syndrome.
If I was making a game I'd start with a sprawling sandbox with tons of mini-games and random activities that tie into the greater game (fishing, farming, exploration). Then you add as much content as you can, in the form of single-player quests and group dungeons. Something for everyone. Oh, and I wouldn't deal with EA... ever.
From what I read, one thing that came in to my mind was archeage. I'm not sure about the combat system but thats pretty much how the world works there. World isnt probably THAT large in scale, but its definitely big.
You can build houses where-ever you want, you can build your own ships which you can then navigate where-ever you want, you can tame animals(milk cows), grow stuff, you can open world pvp, you can be thrown in to npc jail from committing crimes, minigames of sort(not sure what), no classic class system(well atleast there are about 100 different classes) and all sorts of other things.
^^ Archeage looks great, but its not going to be in the USA for a long time. I mean, yes you must leave it to Koreans to build a game we can once again love. Europe and America have their heads up Blizz/WoW's butt to far to make anything worth while... Its why I refuse to buy Rift, Warhammer and all those WoW cookie cutter knock offs.
the problem is, that some options are incompatible and tricky or impossible to combine
so far it was impossible, to have a full blown player-driven economy and at the same time a linear questsystem where everybody can do his quests up to 50 with ease.
in such a quest system all quests and mob-encounters are highly refined. you dont need to think about anything and it is ensured by the devs, that no challenge will occur, becuase this could harm players. just do quest A, B, C and the mobs will drop everything you need, in order to be strong enough for quest D,E, F. and this works up to level 50. but if everything drops from quests, and later even worse, the best items are dropping from raidinstances, this would make a player-driven economy impossible.
so i never saw a theme-park with a player-driven economy, where everything but some basic stuff was made by players. i guess it is impossible.
but without a player-driven economy a lot of roles and features (options) would not work as intended or dont exist at all. on the other side, if you get rid of the linearity of quests and adjust the type of questrewards to the player-driven economy, this quest-system is not what other players do expect. they do not expect to craft. they even do not expect to earn money to buy the stuff they need. heck they even are not willing to think, what items and skills they need. they expect, that everything is given to them, in order to fullfill the nexts step in their hero-story. heroes dont fail, the always win.
so no, it is not all about options. it is all about expectations. and expectations are even more contradictory. look at this forum: no game has ever met the expectations. because it is impossible. you cant cater them all.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
You're looking at it from the standpoint of a themepark and levels. I would have a skill-based game with no levels. I'd also have an almost 100% crafted economy. And it's a lie that everyone wants to be pidgeon-holed into a hero story written by the developers, as I think most people want to create their own story, whether or not they are the hero, villain, or a bystander.
I voted no and heres why:
Tera is a wonderful looking game, but its to cutsey and Asian looking for my tastes. I would rather see a more gritty high fantasy style setting with Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, Half-Giants, Dark Elves, Wood Elves, Centaurs (OMG we havnt seen a Centaur playable race since Shadowbane and its high time we did imo) and all the other traditional AD&D style mobs. (I really detest metrosexual looking males wearing bare middriffs as a playable race, it feels like I am playing a game of Sex and the City and not a fantasy game but this is my preference).
I like the Combat system of Tera but If it was more similar to the soon to be released Neverwinter which is similar in actiony combat without the self rooting of Tera or the Combat of GW2. I do like the concept of Tera's ploitical system and fighting BAM's though so keep that in.
Add in that huge world that you envision the open ended nature of a Skyrim and some of the core exploration ideals that GW2 is going to use for reference watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7qSKgjNb0E
Another thing I would do is to limit the number of skills one can use like a GW1 or a TSW but make the class system open ended, I am just a huge fan of a classless system. I would also like to see a non-Holy Trinity based game like a GW2 or Asherons Call.
Loot would be handled in much the same way as Diablo or Asherons Call, meaning its purely luck based. I love the economy that a Diablo style loot system brings to a game and it worked amazingly well in Asherons Call.
The last thing I would like is to remove all forms of ? and ! based questing hubs and return the game to a Dynamic Event system like a GW2 but still offer questing in the form of Forced Grouping in non-instanced based dungeons like Asherons Call.
Other then that I love all the other points you bring up!
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.
actually i prefer sandboxes. but we had just AAA-theme-parks since ages or crappy made indie sandboxes. while i played them all, i analyzed, why they dont please me, and why the masses buy this garbage.
i am fully with you. a sandbox plus a dynamic event system with a reward structure adjusted to the player driven economy would be perfect. add huge areas for open persistent territorial pvp as well as huge carebear-biotops for PvE only. also add highly diversified unique classes; unablanced moderately. so for structured, instanced pvp you have to use different rule- and itemsets. finally you would get a mixture of EVE and GW2 propably.
but my point was, that no investor was willing so far to give the money for such a game in AAA-quality, which costs millions of dollars. these investors expect a few million box-sales plus around 1 million sustained subscribers nowadays. and they dont believe, that an AAA-sandbox or better call it sandpark due to the huge amount of structured content added, is able to reach such goals.
why should they risk their money as long as millions of theme-park fans buy their linear games? every damn year the same hype followed by the same disiilusion. however, the investors got their return on investment at this point already. and this works because the masses are willing to pay 50$ plus a few month for easy, linear hero-stories with a raid-item-treadmill and some more or less big arenas. we dont know, if they would pay also for a more challenging and versatile game with a strange questing-system form the masses point of view.
perhaps the genere will change step by step in the next years driven into the direction of a sandpark. e.g. GW2 coming out of the theme-park corner and changing a lot of the unholy wow- minded design-paradigms. and TSW which looks like a theme-park as well, but might make people familiar with skill-based systems again. and ArchAge, Pathfinder and others coming out of the sandbox-corner adding an appropriate quest system. if such games will be succesful, you should start your poll again. until then, a real AAA-sandpark will not happen.
played: Everquest I (6 years), EVE (3 years)
months: EQII, Vanguard, Siedler Online, SWTOR, Guild Wars 2
weeks: WoW, Shaiya, Darkfall, Florensia, Entropia, Aion, Lotro, Fallen Earth, Uncharted Waters
days: DDO, RoM, FFXIV, STO, Atlantica, PotBS, Maestia, WAR, AoC, Gods&Heroes, Cultures, RIFT, Forsaken World, Allodds
Not really you can have options and still be a themepark game. Look at WoW it's very much a themepark, but when it first came out there was alot of choice of where you leveled, your choice in the skill trees really changed up your character and there were alot oddball things to see and do. Where as most WoW "copies" have almost no choice in where to level, classes that a pretty set and nothing but combat and usless crafting to do.
I will not play a game with a cash shop ever again. A dev job should be to make the game better not make me pay so it sucks less.
I do believe it boils down to: You can please all of the people some of the time(or for a short while), you can please some of the people all of the time but you can not please all of the people all of the time. Add in that we are talking about gamers, each of whom have their vision of a perfect game tattoo'd in their brain, and you will never be able to say this gameor any game will please everyone. First of all there are too many variables and many are not in the game... community for example. I have never been able to play WoW for any length of time and it was always the community that drove me out. I would rather developers addressed the problem in different versions of the game than have them lump everything all together. Look at GW2 for example - tons of people rant and rave about this game and neither side understands why the others feel the way the do about the game.Again with me it's the community - I don't particularly want to play a game with those who are so rabidly in favor of gW2 or any game. Sometimes the answer is that there is no simple answer. My opinion.
Currently bored with MMO's.
So you are taking a quest system specifically invented in your mind to trump player driven economy as a argument against player driven economy?
Where is it written that quests A B C HAVE TO drop everything needed for quest D E F? They can just drop the quest items, and the player can decide if he wants to complete them with greater effort without or smaller effort with player created goods.
Flame on!