Funny that you say that. I actually played a carpenter in UO for like 2 years, and i wasn't the only one. As others have said, the lack of other activities *is* the issue.
Only for those who want other activities. 99% of gaming is done with violent gameplay (including SP games). I doubt most care very much whether they can play a carpenter.
There isnt much roleplaying anymore. All the new games are requiring players to kill way too much. One of the fist thoughts i had with WoW when logging into a Nightelf Druid was - "Ok im a protector of the forest and animals, why is my first quest to kill surrounding non-aggressive wildlife?"
Would non-combat , or games that do not require combat, with a mmo design (progression in whatever you chose to do) be successful? I think players have fun simply progressing in something (stats or gear) - if it wasn't simply from killing everything players would still have fun.
I remember the old EQ days. As a Druid or Ranger you had a hidden "faction" with wildlife and if you killed them it went down.
I don't think that MMO's are getting more violent, but more "realistic" in the violence inherent in the system....
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
There isnt much roleplaying anymore. All the new games are requiring players to kill way too much. One of the fist thoughts i had with WoW when logging into a Nightelf Druid was - "Ok im a protector of the forest and animals, why is my first quest to kill surrounding non-aggressive wildlife?"
Yeah, I agree with you. I also always wanted a game where, if I play an evil race, I could actually BE an evil character. In most games I have tried the Good and Evil characters do as much evil as good!
There isnt much roleplaying anymore. All the new games are requiring players to kill way too much. One of the fist thoughts i had with WoW when logging into a Nightelf Druid was - "Ok im a protector of the forest and animals, why is my first quest to kill surrounding non-aggressive wildlife?"
Yeah, I agree with you. I also always wanted a game where, if I play an evil race, I could actually BE an evil character. In most games I have tried the Good and Evil characters do as much evil as good!
I can remember when WH came out. We were all geared up to play evil Chaos and Orks. Up to this point I had always been on the good guy side as had my mates. We saw this as a change, something new, a chance to flex our bad guy credentials.
To my astonishment after a couple of weeks of this I found it really hard to maintain any interest in being the bad guy. We had done evil guys fine in table top but in a MMO I just could not find it inspiring. Mates felt the same way, we switched to the good guys and had a much better time.
Maybe this is why stories where a hero does good sell so much better, even anti heroes are heroes at heart. Playing a Bond villain makes for a great cameo but not for the whole story.
There isnt much roleplaying anymore. All the new games are requiring players to kill way too much. One of the fist thoughts i had with WoW when logging into a Nightelf Druid was - "Ok im a protector of the forest and animals, why is my first quest to kill surrounding non-aggressive wildlife?"
Would non-combat , or games that do not require combat, with a mmo design (progression in whatever you chose to do) be successful? I think players have fun simply progressing in something (stats or gear) - if it wasn't simply from killing everything players would still have fun.
Dude you are asking a question that hundreds, no thousands of MMO players before you have asked 5 minutes after getting their first mission as some kind of druid or ranger.
The answer is because developers don't really play D&D, probably never have, not even since the beginning. They're computer geeks, and wanna be screen-writers, and whatnot. They play with math and soldering irons and Yeat's and shiz. D&D was just the vehicle to get them paid for what they really liked to do, which was get paid. So they did what they did, independently of each other and the mythos, and then they put it out there for us to swallow, which we did because at that time we would have pretty much taken anything. And now the younger generations don't know any better, except for the ones who actually came here because they actually read a book first.
There isnt much roleplaying anymore. All the new games are requiring players to kill way too much. One of the fist thoughts i had with WoW when logging into a Nightelf Druid was - "Ok im a protector of the forest and animals, why is my first quest to kill surrounding non-aggressive wildlife?"
Would non-combat , or games that do not require combat, with a mmo design (progression in whatever you chose to do) be successful? I think players have fun simply progressing in something (stats or gear) - if it wasn't simply from killing everything players would still have fun.
If you would have read the quest you would have known.
If games had the depth of playing systems beyond gain xp for killing, they could still be very fun games.
Let's review how "experience" came about, exactly.
We'll got back the the D&D box set. Experience is supposed to reflect what you have learned, which in turn allows you to progress, and thus "grow into" bigger challenges.
Now that original box rules equated gold collected to experience, as well as monsters defeated, and direct awards (DM discretion, often "RP" awards).
The gold eventually dropped out of the picture over the years for most DMs; too Monty Haul-encouraging.
The discretionary awards don't exactly work with automated systems, and "RP" certainly doesn't work with most players.
Sew...you're left with monsters defeated.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
There isnt much roleplaying anymore. All the new games are requiring players to kill way too much. One of the fist thoughts i had with WoW when logging into a Nightelf Druid was - "Ok im a protector of the forest and animals, why is my first quest to kill surrounding non-aggressive wildlife?"
Would non-combat , or games that do not require combat, with a mmo design (progression in whatever you chose to do) be successful? I think players have fun simply progressing in something (stats or gear) - if it wasn't simply from killing everything players would still have fun.
You did not read the quest description did you? you just mindlessly went to kill, that is where your problem is actually. if you read you would have known they were corrupted(quest descriptions says "effect of teldrassil") by teldrassil(artificially created by night eves led by fandral staghelm and corrupted by fandral), they were breeding too fast and growing too fast, not to mention they became increasingly violent(leave the starter zone running toward darnassus and you will find very big aggressive ones) and were becoming oversized. later you would find quests where they tell you to fish and you find a oversized fish, which is also acknowledged as teldrassil's effect. you really need to read before jumping to kill.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
I think if you want a weapon (that could be used to kill things) in a game you should have to apply to authority's....who will make a background check to make sure you are not a griefer.When you get permission to own a weapon you need to take a mandatory training course. Only then can you have a weapon.Your permission to own a weapon will of course be reviewed annually to see if you still satisfy the requirements to own it.
If games had the depth of playing systems beyond gain xp for killing, they could still be very fun games.
Let's review how "experience" came about, exactly.
We'll got back the the D&D box set. Experience is supposed to reflect what you have learned, which in turn allows you to progress, and thus "grow into" bigger challenges.
Now that original box rules equated gold collected to experience, as well as monsters defeated, and direct awards (DM discretion, often "RP" awards).
The gold eventually dropped out of the picture over the years for most DMs; too Monty Haul-encouraging.
The discretionary awards don't exactly work with automated systems, and "RP" certainly doesn't work with most players.
Sew...you're left with monsters defeated.
true...but I believe 4e rules stated defeat, or even successfully overcome (bypass, elude, etc) the encounter. You don't have to kill.
The problem is that computer games are code, and code isn't that good at variable outcomes yet. Defeating a MOB is the easiest, simplest gate to program. Also, the nature of MMOs leads to players taking the path of least resistance possible.
Comments
Only for those who want other activities. 99% of gaming is done with violent gameplay (including SP games). I doubt most care very much whether they can play a carpenter.
I remember the old EQ days. As a Druid or Ranger you had a hidden "faction" with wildlife and if you killed them it went down.
I don't think that MMO's are getting more violent, but more "realistic" in the violence inherent in the system....
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
Yeah, I agree with you. I also always wanted a game where, if I play an evil race, I could actually BE an evil character. In most games I have tried the Good and Evil characters do as much evil as good!
I can remember when WH came out. We were all geared up to play evil Chaos and Orks. Up to this point I had always been on the good guy side as had my mates. We saw this as a change, something new, a chance to flex our bad guy credentials.
To my astonishment after a couple of weeks of this I found it really hard to maintain any interest in being the bad guy. We had done evil guys fine in table top but in a MMO I just could not find it inspiring. Mates felt the same way, we switched to the good guys and had a much better time.
Maybe this is why stories where a hero does good sell so much better, even anti heroes are heroes at heart. Playing a Bond villain makes for a great cameo but not for the whole story.
Dude you are asking a question that hundreds, no thousands of MMO players before you have asked 5 minutes after getting their first mission as some kind of druid or ranger.
The answer is because developers don't really play D&D, probably never have, not even since the beginning. They're computer geeks, and wanna be screen-writers, and whatnot. They play with math and soldering irons and Yeat's and shiz. D&D was just the vehicle to get them paid for what they really liked to do, which was get paid. So they did what they did, independently of each other and the mythos, and then they put it out there for us to swallow, which we did because at that time we would have pretty much taken anything. And now the younger generations don't know any better, except for the ones who actually came here because they actually read a book first.
If you would have read the quest you would have known.
Let's review how "experience" came about, exactly.
We'll got back the the D&D box set. Experience is supposed to reflect what you have learned, which in turn allows you to progress, and thus "grow into" bigger challenges.
Now that original box rules equated gold collected to experience, as well as monsters defeated, and direct awards (DM discretion, often "RP" awards).
The gold eventually dropped out of the picture over the years for most DMs; too Monty Haul-encouraging.
The discretionary awards don't exactly work with automated systems, and "RP" certainly doesn't work with most players.
Sew...you're left with monsters defeated.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
You did not read the quest description did you? you just mindlessly went to kill, that is where your problem is actually. if you read you would have known they were corrupted(quest descriptions says "effect of teldrassil") by teldrassil(artificially created by night eves led by fandral staghelm and corrupted by fandral), they were breeding too fast and growing too fast, not to mention they became increasingly violent(leave the starter zone running toward darnassus and you will find very big aggressive ones) and were becoming oversized. later you would find quests where they tell you to fish and you find a oversized fish, which is also acknowledged as teldrassil's effect. you really need to read before jumping to kill.
Boobs are LIFE, Boobs are LOVE, Boobs are JUSTICE, Boobs are mankind's HOPES and DREAMS. People who complain about boobs have lost their humanity.
OP
I think if you want a weapon (that could be used to kill things) in a game you should have to apply to authority's....who will make a background check to make sure you are not a griefer.When you get permission to own a weapon you need to take a mandatory training course. Only then can you have a weapon.Your permission to own a weapon will of course be reviewed annually to see if you still satisfy the requirements to own it.
true...but I believe 4e rules stated defeat, or even successfully overcome (bypass, elude, etc) the encounter. You don't have to kill.
The problem is that computer games are code, and code isn't that good at variable outcomes yet. Defeating a MOB is the easiest, simplest gate to program. Also, the nature of MMOs leads to players taking the path of least resistance possible.